Commons Chamber

House of Commons

Thursday, June 27, 1901

Private Bill Business

Great Southern and Western Railway Bill [Lords]. (by Order.)

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

said he had no intention to oppose the Bills but he did desire to point out that it contained some very extraordinary provisions. It was an omnibus Bill, and he could not understand why the promoter, should have mixed up so many totally different things in a measure, the chief object of which was to construct a railway from Gooldscrossto Cashel. He was entirely in sympathy with the construction of new railways, because he held that they wanted more railway facilities in Ireland. The way in which private railway Bills were dealt with in that House was most extraordinary. The promoters introduced them, and never took the slightest trouble to explain their provisions; Parliament was supposed to take it for granted that the promoters were purely philanthropic individuals acting solely in the public interest, and it was consequently expected to pass their schemes without explanation or discussion. He was, for one, entirely opposed to that method of railway legislation, and he thought it was the duty of the promoters of Bills to explain their objects. Hence he was affording them an opportunity to do that on the Bill now before the House. What was the object of this Bill? It was—

"to enable the Great Southern and Western Railway Company to make an extension railway to Cashel and a branch railway to the Curragh siding; to execute certain other works; to acquire additional lands; to transfer to and vest in the Company the undertakings of the Limerick and Kerry Railway Company; and of the Rathkeale and Newcastle Junction Railway Company; to raise additional capital; and for other purposes."

Now, as he said, he entirely approved the proposal to construct new railways, but there were other matters included in the Bill to which he felt bound to call the attention of the House, notwithstanding the fact that hon. Members did not look with approval on incursions made by private Bill business on the time of the House. But this Bill was concerned in the granting of a monopoly to certain railway companies, and time might usefully be spent in examining the proposal. It proposed to hand over to the company the best part of Ireland.

Question.

We consider the south the best part. We do not think the north is.

We do.

(continuing) said that in connection with the acquirement of the Rathkeale and Newcastle Junction Railway he could see no provision to secure that the public interests in no way suffered. Then there was a proposal to divert and alter a certain road and to stop up an existing level crossing, and to construct and maintain a new level crossing in the townland of Kiltorcan, in the parish of Derrynahinch, in the county of Kilkenny; but that matter he felt he might safely leave in the hands of the Kilkenny people; they were best qualified to look after their own interests. The Great Southern and Western Company was posing as a public benefactor, but he found that they were calling on a public authority to find a sum of £35,000 a year. Then he came to Sub-section 19, which he would read to the House—

"And whereas it is expedient to confirm the agreement between the Southern Hotels Limited and the Company contained in the First Schedule to this Act, and that the Company should be authorised to purchase and Carry on the business of the Southern Hotels Limited.

Now, he was not altogether in favour of these hotel undertakings, although possibly in this particular instance it was the best thing that could be done. Undoubtedly these railway hotels had conferred considerable benefit on the community by providing accommodation for tourists to Ireland; but still it was a wrong principle that railway companies should get monopolies of hotels, docks, canals, and kindred undertakings, for if that continued the time might come when the whole country and Parliament itself would be at their mercy. In connection with the acquirement of land and the rehousing of the labouring classes proposed to be dishoused, he understood that the Local Government Board regulations would apply in this case, and that the company would be expected to meet their requirements in that respect. Still it should be borne in mind that past experience had proved railway companies to be very lacking in that respect, and he hoped, therefore, that the Local Government Board would keep this company up to the mark. Very important was Clause 26, which read as follows—

"The consideration for the transfer of the undertaking of the Kerry Company to the Company shall be the payment of the sum of two hundred and eighty thousand pounds and the consideration for the transfer of the under- taking of the Rathkeale Company to the Company shall be the payment of the sum of on hundred and thirty-three thousand three hundred and thirty-three pounds six shillings and eightpence and such sums respectively shall b paid on the date of vesting or within one month thereafter to the liquidators of the Kerry Company and the Rathkeale Company respectively and such sums are hereinafter referred to as 'the purchase moneys,' and the receipt of such liquidators shall be a good and sufficient discharge to the Company for the payment of the purchase moneys. If the said respective sum be not paid by the Company on the date of vesting the Company shall pay to the liquidators of the two Companies respectively interest on the amount of unpaid cash due to them or either of them at the rate of three per centum per annum from the said date up to the date of payment provided that nothing herein before contained with reference to the payment of interest shall prejudice any rights of the liquidators to take proceedings to enforce payment of the purchase moneys."

Thus the consideration for the transfer of the undertaking of the Kerry Company was to be a payment of £280,000, and for the Rathkeale Company £133,333 6s. 8d. The reason he opposed the Bill was that he had not the slightest faith in the bargains made by railway companies, as apparently agreements and arrangements made under Parliamentary sanction were not considered in the slightest degree binding upon them. The companies made their promises, obtained their Bills, and then did absolutely as they liked. That was a strong statement, but it was absolutely true. The House of Commons ought not to be made the tool of any railway company, and the arrangements made ought to be carried out. The hon. Member was about to refer to an agreement made by the Great Southern and Western Railway when—

ruled that the matter was not revelant to the Bill under consideration, as it related to another transaction altogether.

thought the point was germane, inasmuch as the larger portion of the Bill related to the purchase of the Kerry and the Rathkeale Railways—a matter which was dealt with under the amalgamation scheme, but in deference to the ruling of the Speaker he would not pursue the point. Another matter was the scandalous time occupied in bringing cattle short distances, a grievance which at the time of the amalgamation the company promised the Cattle Traders' Association they would remedy. That promise, like all others, had not been kept. As to the omission with regard to the building of the railway from Cork to Fermoy, the Cork County Council, the Cork Corporation, and the Harbour Board had had a series of indignation meetings, but withoutresult. The railway company were absolutely throwing away the money guaranteed by the Treasury, and continued to refuse to redeem their promise to build the railway. In conclusion, he suggested that the Cashel scheme should have been brought forward separately, and to that there would have been no opposition, but a great many other matters in the Bill required to be very fully discussed. He moved the rejection of the Bill.

Amendment proposed—

"To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'this day three months.'"—( Mr. Field. )

Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

, in seconding, complained of the Bill mixing up such questions as the building of the Cashel Railway, which all were anxious to have, and the completion of the purchase of the Kerry Railway. By the Act of 1873 the Kerry Railway was started, the Kerry Grand Jury guaranteeing £120,000 to help forward the building of the line. Limerick also guaranteed a large sum, and by means of these guarantees the railway was built. The grand juries extracted certain securities from the railway companies, and one was that if the companies made at any time a profit of more than five per cent, the counties of Limerick and Kerry should have the first charge upon it. During the time the railway had been in existence it had not in any year made a profit, and the consequence was that Kerry and Limerick had been contributing for twenty years. Kerry had paid £32,000 and Limerick about £12,000. The Act of 1873 provided that the counties of Limerick and Kerry had a prior right to any earnings the company might make over 5 percent.; but, notwithstanding the fact that it was agreed upon all hands that the counties of Limerick and Kerry had a prior right to those earnings, the Bill before the House made no provision whatever to guarantee to those counties that the same rights which they enjoyed under the old Bills should be continued under the new. It had been laid down in the House of Lords that, although there was great difficulty in interpreting some of the old clauses, on this particular point of a prior right there was no doubt that the guarantee counties had a first charge on the profits. All parties were agreed that the counties referred to had a prior right, and now, when the line was being sold, they were simply asking that that prior right should be secured in the new Act. It was admitted that the Rights of the counties were prior to the Rights of the shareholders or other creditors, but, instead of making that right plain and avoiding the expense which would naturally follow, they were asked to be satisfied with leaving out this clause giving the counties a prior right, which everybody admitted was just, and allow the courts to decide afterwards whether the rights of the counties were prior to the rights of the other creditors. This measure ought to be decided upon its merits and should not be left to the lawyers, who expected to profit by it. What they wanted was a clause inserted similar to the one which stood in his name, which would make this company carry out what was provided for in the former Act of 1873. His point was that the Great Southern and Western Railway Company were not asking them to do this in an honest and straightforward manner. The Amalgamation Act of 1900 pledged this company to insert a clause to the effect that the guarantee counties would not be injured, but in face of this, and in spite of eminent counsel's opinion that these counties had a prior right, this company refused to insert a clause which would have simplified the measure and which would have guaranteed to those counties what was provided by former Acts. The County Council of Kerry had presented a petition against this Bill, and representatives from Kerry and Limerick were heard before a Committee of the House of Lords, but the influence of the railway companies was so great that it was useless for the representatives of the ratepayers to go there to attempt to safeguard public interests. He trusted that both sides of the House would look at the Bill from a thorough business standpoint, and they ought not to permit the House of Commons to be made the mere servants of a railway company.

said he had listened to the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin for nearly half an hour, and he had not been able to gather whether he was in favour of or against the Bill. The hon. Member made the unusual complaint that this railway company had been spending money upon establishing new hotels in Ireland. He should have thought that if there was one thing Irishmen were agreed upon it was the action of railway companies in establishing hotels to encourage tourists to visit Ireland to spend their money in that country. The hon. Member had objected to the Bill on the ground that it was an omnibus Bill, but he ought to know that three or four Bills would enormously increase the expense of promoting the schemes in the House of Commons. The promoters of the measure did not wish that money should be spent in that way. The hon. Member who seconded the resolution raised an objection with regard to the priority rights of the Limerick and Kerry County Councils. Kerry County Council could petition against the Bill, and they would be heard before the Committee. Limerick County Council had withdrawn their opposition to the Bill. The Bill had passed the other House, and only now awaited the consideration of the House of Commons.

said that if this Bill did not become law the position of the ratepayers of the county of Limerick with respect to the money paid by them in accordance with their baronial guarantee for the working of the Limerick and Kerry line was perfectly clear. They had a charge on the railway, and the net receipts from the same, for the money so paid. Section 61 of the Limerick and Kerry Railway Act 1873, said—

"If any moneys shall have been paid or contributed by the said counties or baronies under the provisions of this Act, all such moneys, together with the costs and expenses of levying the same, shall be, as and from the dates of the respective payments of the same, charged upon the railway and the net receipts from the same."

What were net receipts? It might do no harm to read what Section 3 of the Act said. Section 3 defined the net assets, namely—

"The net receipts arising from the railway after paying the working expenses thereof and before the payment of any principal, dividends, or interest in loans, mortgages, debentures, debenture stock, or other capital or debts of the company."

They wanted to see that charge of priority properly safeguarded. The amounts due in respect of the priority charges were — to county Limerick £12,000, and to county Kerry £32,000. If this Bill became law and the sale was carried through, unless a clause were inserted in it giving effect to this charge of priority which they and the ratepayers of the county of Kerry undoubtedly had, directing that their respective county councils be paid as a first charge out of the proceeds of the sale, then, he maintained, their position was not so clear. It might be argued on behalf of the Government that the Bill safeguarded the interests of the ratepayers, and that there was no necessity for a special clause to that effect. If that was the contention, what harm would there be in inserting a clause to make the matter clear? He held that Clause 31 in the Bill bearing on the point was not at all plain. The clause said—

"From and after the date of vesting all rights and obligations of the Company and of the counties of Limerick and Kerry respectively in respect of the guarantee created by the, Limerick and Kerry Railway Acts 1873 and 1877 and any other Act or Acts of the Kerry Company relating thereto shall wholly cease and determine provided always that nothing herein contained shall prejudice or affect the rights of the said counties to obtain repayment in the winding-up of the Kerry Company out of the said purchase money of such sum or sums as they may previous to the date of vesting have paid or have become liable to pay on foot of the said guarantee provided further that the Company shall by virtue of this Act be wholly freed from any liability in respect of the said payment on foot of the said guarantee or otherwise howsoever in the matter."

In that clause there was not a word about the priority claims of the two counties. That seemed to him curious. He thought the ratepayers' rights were not at all properly preserved. He was borne out in this opinion by high authority. Mr. Taylor, K.C., counsel to the Limerick County Council, in giving his opinion, said—

"I am clearly of opinion that the opposition, ought to be continued and a short declaratory clause, such as was agreed upon by Mr. Blennerhassett and myself, ought to be brought up so as to set the question at rest, and to obviate litigation in the future. This seems to me a most reasonable request, and one that the Committee ought to grant."

Furthermore, he had the following letter from the solicitor to the Kerry County Council on the matter, and as it exactly represented the position of the Limerick County Council he would read it. This gentleman said—

"We do not ask for any priority that we would not be entitled to under the existing, state of things. What we ask is—that our rights shall in no way be prejudiced by a rule of the Limerick and Kerry line to the Great Southern and Western Railway, and we merely, want a clause to that effect inserted in the Bill. Our counsel advises us that as the Bill is drawn our rights are not preserved, and if we do not succeed in securing these rights by a clause it would be better for the Council that, the Bill was thrown out altogether. If this should happen the counties are advised that they must be repaid in full out of the £8,400 a, year which the G. S. and W. Co. are bound to pay in perpetuity under the agreement sanctioned by the Amalgamation Act of 1900, and which is set out in the Schedule to that Act. Of course, we do not want the Bill thrown out if a clause properly preserving our rights is inserted in the Bill."

The House would see then that there was every necessity that the ratepayers' interests should be safeguarded, especially when they considered the financial position of the railway company— that its liabilities exceed its assets. He would like to ask the responsible Minister whether he would give an assurance that the two sums which he had mentioned as due to the county councils, of Limerick and Kerry would be paid as a first charge, after paying working expenses, out of the proceeds of the sale of the line. The answer to that question would, to a very large extent, determine how he was to act in this matter.

said experience of the Great Southern and Western Railway Company showed that unless they were tied hand and foot by a clause in the Bill they could not be relied upon. He trusted the parliamentary scandal would not now be repeated of directors of this or any other railway voting on the question before the House. He asked the House to consider the inconvenience of a Bill of this kind. It was an omnibus Bill, carrying some passengers going in one direction and some going in another direction. They were all in favour of the extension of the railway to Cashel, and the local bodies had shown their faith in that by giving a guarantee. There were other portions of the Bill which were the most contentious that could possibly be introduced in a private Bill. There was, for example, the clause dealing with the winding-up of the Kerry Company. It was well known that the Great Southern and Western Company had pursued a steady policy of starvation towards that company. The complaint of the commercial community was that they always arranged their trains to miss the connections with the Kerry Company's trains. They adopted a similar policy in regard to the Waterford and Limerick line. In fact, this company brought in an omnibus Bill, and most ingeniously tried to play off one section of the Irish Members who were in favour of the Cashel Extension against those who were in favour of the extension from Limerick to Rathkeale. Then there was the Cork to Fermoy branch, powers for which had been got in 1898 or 1899. They were bound to commence it within three years from a certain date. The line was surveyed, plans deposited, guarantees given, but not a sod had been turned. What was the occult influence of this company? What chances had ratepayers of Ireland against this railway company in the House of Lords? This was a question which should be decided by the Irish Members. In view of the manner in which the Great Southern and Western Railway had unscrupulously thrown over their pledges to the Chambers of Commerce of Cork, Kerry, and Dublin, and the Treasury, and that they refused to build the Cork and Fermoy line he trusted the Bill would not be given a Second Reading.

said he spoke on behalf of neither the Great Southern and Western Railway or any other rail way, but he thought that the formation of the line to Cashel, and the purchase by the Great Southern and Western Railway Company of the North Kerry line would be in the best interests of the people of the south and west of Ireland; and for that reason alone he ventured to ask the House to pass the Bill. One of the great grievances from which they suffered in Ireland was that capitalists did not find investments, and if they made investments in railway undertakings precarious and uncertain, it would still further deter capital from flowing into the country. The Bill was opposed—although they all desired that the Cashel line should be made—because this railway company had been guilty of some sin at some early period of its career. Were they to be prevented doing anything, no matter how good and desirable it might be in itself, at a subsequent period because of that sin? Were they never to be allowed to repent?

Fancy a railway company repenting!

submitted that that was an entirely irrational principle of dealing with a railway company. The Great Southern and Western Railway were at present under a statutory obligation to bring forward a Bill for the purchase of the North Kerry line, and if this Bill was not carried the result would be that the Great Southern and Western Railway would continue to work that line under the old working agreement. But it did not require a great stretch of imagination to suppose that the company would not work the North Kerry line so well or so efficiently under such agreement than as if the line were their own property. He did not think it could be successfully maintained that the purchase of the North Kerry line by the Great Southern and Western Railway Company was a bad thing in itself, provided that they were making the purchase on just and fair terms to all the parties. He understood that the contention of the hon. Gentleman who moved the rejection of the Bill was that the terms of purchase were not just and fair to the ratepayers of Limerick and Kerry; and it was said by the hon. Member for Kerry that under various statutes the ratepayers of Limerick and Kerry had a certain claim on the assets of the company, and that they should have a priority over the mortgagees. He did not want to express any opinion on that subject, but he would point out that, as the county council of Kerry had petitioned against the Bill, the whole question could be inquired into in Committee upstairs, and if the interests of the ratepayers of Limerick and Kerry were not adequately safeguarded the language of the clauses in the Bill could be altered.

said he desired to make his position perfectly clear to his colleagues and to his constituents, so far as the Instruction which had been placed upon the Paper was concerned. If the motion moved by his hon. friend was pressed to a division he would be compelled to vote against it; but with regard to the principle which underlay the motion he was absolutely with the hon. Member. The Great Southern and Western Railway Company had not carried out the promises which they had made in the past, and he thought that if there was any doubt about safeguarding the ratepayers of the two counties of Limerick and Kerry it should be at once removed, and that there should be no loop-hole left for lawyers to spend further money in litigation. He expressed his gratitude to those who supported the building of a line to Cashel, but he regretted that the construction of that line should be dovetailed into the other portions of this Bill in the way it had been. But there it was, and they had to decide whether they should accept or reject this measure. He appealed to his hon. friends to accept the suggestion which the Attorney General had thrown out. He did not wish to oppose this measure, because he recognised that hon. Members from Ireland were there to safeguard the interests of Ireland in the only possible way.

said in this matter he was in agreement with the hon. Member who represented Cashel, and from that point of view he should be sorry to see the Bill defeated. He was equally in sympathy with the hon. Gentlemen representing Limerick and Kerry, the claim put forward by whom was, in his opinion, a perfectly fair and reasonable one. It was that whatever rights the ratepayers of Limerick and Kerry had under the statute of 1873 should be preserved to them under the present Bill, and if the clause of the Bill did not safeguard those interests some amendment should be made. He suggested that the proper course would be, not for his hon. friends to oppose the Second Reading of the Bill, and thereby imperil the interests of Cashel, but to vote for the Second Reading, and oppose the measure upon the Instruction which was on the Paper in the name of one of the hon. Members for Kerry. If they were defeated upon the Instruction, they could then oppose the Third Reading if the Committee did not safeguard the ratepayers' interests. If they adopted that course, he was confident that the hon. Members representing Limerick and Kerry would have the support of everybody. He therefore suggested that the motion for the rejection of the Bill should be withdrawn, and that the hon. Members for Limerick and Kerry should direct their attention to supporting the Instruction on the Paper, by doing which they would not seriously imperil the interests of their constituents, because, as he had said, they always had the Third Reading to go upon.

said he accepted the suggestion of the hon. Member, and, with the leave of the House, would withdraw his Amendment.

said, as the Instruction stood in his name, he might say he did not intend to say anything with regard to the matter, in view of the fact of the appeal which had been made by the hon. Member for Waterford.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn; main Question put, and agreed to; Bill read a second time, and committed.

Dublin, Wicklow and Wexford Railway (New Ross and Waterford Extension) Bill. (by Order.)

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

said he was reluctant to oppose this Bill, because it was backed by the hon. Member for Waterford and the hon. Baronet representing Wexford, and if his constituency had had any opportunity of discussing the measure he would not have put down the motion which stood in his name. The Bill was a small one, and had reference to an Act of Parliament passed in 1897, which gave this company power to construct a bridge over a certain portion of this proposed line. This Mil was for the object of obtaining permission to substitute a level crossing for that bridge; but this crossing was to be constructed where a very steep hill led to a market town, and where it would place the maximum of inconvenience upon the people going to and from the market. It would be obvious to the House that the alteration in the plans which this Bill proposed to make on the original Act was a very serious matter for the people of the district which he represented, and it was for this reason that he opposed the Bill. The company had alleged that it would be very expensive to build the bridge at this particular point of the line, but he submitted that, if that were so, that was the fault of the company for not having foreseen the difficulty when first they came for powers, and altered their plans accordingly. If he was right in that contention, then they should be required to spend the amount of money necessary to build the bridge. If it were decided to have a level crossing, then he submitted that the gates should be worked automatically, and that a foot bridge should be placed over the crossing for the convenience of the public. His constituents were the only people interested in the matter of having a level crossing instead of a bridge at this point, and they ought to be considered. He had every wish to see the railway constructed, as he believed it would be of enormous value to the people of this district, and if it was proved to his satisfaction that the company could not build this bridge he would not stand in the way of so good a Bill. He begged to move that the Bill be read a second time this day three mouths.

seconded the Amendment, and said that if the hon. Member pressed it to a division he should vote with him

Amendment proposed—

"To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the question to add the words 'upon his day three months.'"—( Mr. O'Mara ).

Question proposed, "That the word 'now ' stand part of the Question."

regretted that this question should have been raised. He considered it only another instance of the inconvenience of conducting Irish legal business in this House. The question, which seemed at first sight to be so small, and affecting so small a district, was, in reality, a very large one, affecting to a considerable extent the south-eastern portion of Ireland. The facts of the case were these:— In 1897 the Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway Company obtained the leave of Parliament to construct a line from New Ross to Waterford, and in the original Bill it was proposed to construct a bridge at this particular place. The hon. Member for South Kilkenny did not charge the company with any breach in that respect. The grand jury opposed the Bill, not on account of the bridge, but on account of certain gradients which were to be made on certain roads. Their proposals were agreed to, and this Bill only interfered very slightly with the gradients in the original Bill, something like one in fourteen. When the engineers began to examine for a foundation for this bridge, they bored for fifty feet, and found nothing but mud, upon which no foundation could be laid. It was not a company with large means, and the House might judge the position when he told them that the estimate for building the bridge under the present circumstances was £10,000, which was a very large sum upon an original contract for the line of £100,000. The company therefore came to the House to make this change in the original plans. The county of Kilkenny had every opportunity of opposing it in the usual way, if they fancied they had a grievance, at a later stage. He wished a peaceful way out of the difficulty to be found, and, therefore, on behalf of the railway company, he would guarantee that automatic gates should be erected at the level crossing, that there should be no shunting there, that the provisions of the Railway Act referred to in the Board of Trade regulations should be inserted in the Bill, and that a provision should be added requiring the company, if at any time called upon by the Board of Trade, to erect a foot-path over the level crossing.

was understood to suggest that a tunnel would be better than a foot-bridge at the level crossing.

thought the proposition of the hon. Baronet the Member for North Wexford ought to be accepted, because, if the Board of Trade had certain regulations with regard to the construction of railways, it was perfectly obvious that the construction of this railway would not be permitted unless the regulations were complied with. He suggested that the Bill might now be allowed to pass its Second Reading.

said it would be a great pity if this extension could not be constructed in consequence of the opposition which had been brought against the Bill on particular points, because the new line from New Ross to Waterford had been demanded for years, and would facilitate communication between important districts in the south of Ireland. There had been no breach of a previous agreement with regard to the bridge over the level crossing. The proposal came from the company itself, but when the engineer sounded the foundations it was discovered they were so bad that in order to build a bridge it would be necessary to go to the enormous expense of constructing it on piles, and it was doubtful whether it would be safe even then. It would, therefore, be unreasonable to press the Amendment to a division, because the defeat of the Bill would mean that the line would not be built for a very long time.

hoped the hon. Member for South Kilkenny would rest satisfied with the result of the action he had taken with regard to the Bill. The hon. Member was not only justified in raising the question, but was bound to do so, from the fact that the county council for Kilkenny had by some means, possibly to some extent through their own fault, lost their opportunity of raising these points by lodging a petition within the time allowed by the Standing Orders of the House. Moreover, from the point of view of the public generally, the system of level crossings was most undesirable and dangerous. Having regard, however, to the substantial concessions made by the hon. Baronet on behalf of the railway company, the hon. Member might very well refrain from going to a division. This was a scheme of enormous importance to the whole of the south-east and south of Ireland, as it afforded an alternative route to the routes already in existence, and from the point of view of the general public it would be a most valuable scheme. Various obstacles had for years stood in the way of the construction of this little piece of railway, one being that the Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway was a somewhat impecunious concern, and had found great difficulty in raising the necessary capital. That matter had now been arranged, and the railway was partly constructed. Anything which would throw an impossible burden upon the company, or endanger the completion of the scheme, would be a misfortune to the whole of the south and south-east of Ireland. Apart from the general consideration he looked at the matter from, the point of view of county Wexford, with which he was closely associated, and of Waterford, which he had the honour to represent. These localities were intimately concerned in the success of the scheme, and both were in favour of the Bill going through. It was interesting, to bear in mind that, although the particular spot at which this alteration was to be made belonged geographically to the county of Kilkenny, under the Local Government Act it had been added to the administrative county of Wexford. Wexford was divided from Kilkenny by the River Barrow, and this little strip of land on the Kilkenny side was really a suburb of New Ross. The county council of Wexford, and the district council of New Ross, where the level crossing was to be, were unanimously in favour of the Second Reading of the Bill, and their interests were greater and more inti- mately concerned than those of the county council of Kilkenny. It was clear that if this bridge had to be constructed, the minimum estimate for which was £10,000, but the actual cost of which might be £20,000 or more, because no one knew how far they would have to go through the mud to get a foundation, the construction of the line would be seriously jeopardised. After the guarantees which had been given, he thought the Bill should be allowed to be read a second time.

, as representing the city of Kilkenny, desired to associate himself with the Members for North and South Kilkenny in the action they had taken, and if they pressed their Amendment to a division he should certainly vote with them. The hon. Member for Waterford had endeavoured to minimise the importance of the matter by saying that only a little strip of land was concerned. But little strips of land had before now led to bloody wars between European States, and therefore that was no reason for disregarding the claims of Kilkenny. He desired it to be clearly understood that they were not opposing the company in its intention to establish communication by means of this line; their only desire was to protect the interests of their county and the safety of their people. The necessity for opposition was the more regrettable, because this company, labouring under great disadvantages, was the only independent railway company in Leinster, the remainder of the district being under the monstrous monopoly of the Great Southern and Western Rail way Company. Under the circumstances he thought it would be wise not to press the Amendment to a division.

said that, having regard to the assurance of the hon. Member for Waterford that the Amendment, if carried, might endanger the whole scheme, he would withdraw his opposition, as he had no desire to deprive the district of the beneficent results which would accrue from the construction of the railway. At the same time, he would remind the hon. Baronet the Member for Wexford that he had made four concessions—firstly, that the company, if required by the Board of Trade, would erect a footpath over the railway at the level crossing; secondly, that the gates should open and close mechanically; thirdly, that there should be no shunting at the level crossing; and, fourthly, that there should be a consultation with the engineer as to the best way of dealing with the crossing. These concessions were all he could reasonably hope for, and he therefore asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a second time, and committed.

Dublin St. James' Gate Brewery Tramways Bill

Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.

CITY AND SOUTH LONDON RAILWAY BILL [Lords]

NEW SWINDON GAS BILL [Lords]

Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Paisley Police and Public Health Bill

Read the third time, and passed.

Rhyl Improvement Bill

King's consent signified; Bill read the third time, and passed.

Stratford-Upon-Avon, Towcester, and Midland Junction, East and West Junction and Evesham, Redditch, and Stratford-Upon-Avon Junction Railway Companies Bill

Read the third time, and passed. (New title.)

CHESTER GAS BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered; an Amendment made; Bill to be read the third time.

DOVER CORPORATION BILL [Lords]. (BY ORDER.)

Read a second time, and committed.

BARROW-IN-FURNESS CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Barrow-in-Furness Corporation Bill [Lords] to insert the following clause—

Any scheme for the establishment of a superannuation or provident fund under this part of this Act shall not come into operation until the Corporation shall in respect of that fund have been registered under the Friendly Societies Act, 1896, and the provisions of that Act (except the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 8 and Section forty-one) so far as they are applicable and are not inconsistent with the provisions of this part of this Act shall apply as if (a) the Corporation were a society to which that Act applies and were the trustees of such society; (b) as if the scheme were the rules of such society; (c) as if the superannuation or provident funds were the funds of such society; and (d) as if the contributors to the fund were the members of such society.—( Mr. Strachey .)

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL

As amended, considered; to be read the third time to-morrow.

SOUTH LANCASHIRE TRAMWAYS BILL [Lords]

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 11) BILL

Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order cnofirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill, as amended, to be considered to-morrow.

Railway Bills (Group 10)

reported from the Committee on Group No. 10 of Railway Bills: That, there being no further business ready for the consideration of the Committee, they had adjourned until Tuesday next, at half-past Eleven of the clock.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Message from the Lords

That they have agreed to—

Ardrossan Gas and Water Order Confirmation Bill,

North British and Mercantile Insurance Company's Provisional Order Bill,

Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Provisional Order Bill,

Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill,

Commons Regulation and Inclosure (Skipwith) Provisional Order Bill,

Metropolitan Common Scheme (Orpington) Provisional Order Bill,

Irish Presbyterian Church Bill,

British Gas Light Company Bill, without Amendment.

Hull, Barnsley, and West Riding Junction Railway and Dock Bill,

Taff Vale Railway Bill,

North Eastern Railway Bill, with Amendments.

Amendments to—

Aspatria, Silloth, and District Water Bill [Lords],

Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Gateshead Gas Bill [Lords].

Shrewsbury Gas Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Board of Education under the Elementary Education Acts, 1870 to 1900, to enable the School Board for London to put in force the Lands Clauses Acts." Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London) Bill [Lords].

Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Company to capitalise interest in arrear on Debenture Stocks; and for other purposes." Freshwater, Yarmouth, and Newport Railwav Bill [Lords].

Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to enable the Cork, Blackrock, and Passage Railway Company to raise additional money; to confer further powers on them in relation to their undertaking; and for other purposes." Cork, Blackrock, and Passage Railway Bill [Lords].

Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Urban District Council of Rugby, in the county of Warwick, to construct additional waterworks for the supply of their district, and the parish of Bilton; and to make further and better provision for the improvement, health, local government, and finance of the district; and for other purposes." Rugby Water and Improvement Bill [Lords].

Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend certain provisions of the Belfast Harbour Act, 1898; to enable the Belfast Harbour Commissioners to make a new and substituted graving dock; to confirm agreements as to lands and works connected therewith; and for other purposes." Belfast Harbour Bill [Lords].

And also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the sale of certain churches, vicarage houses, and schools in the city of Leeds, and the application of the proceeds of sale to church purposes within the said city; to provide for the alteration of ecclesiastical parishes or districts in the said city; and for other purposes." Leeds Churches Bill [Lords].

EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL [Lords]

Read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 228.]

FRESHWATER, YARMOUTH AND NEWPORT RAILWAY BILL [Lords]

CORK, BLACKROCK, AND PASSAGE RAILWAY BILL [Lords]

RUGBY WATER AND IMPROVEMENT BILL [Lords]

BRLFAST HARBOUR BILL [Lords].

LEEDS CHURCHES BILL [Lords].

Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Petitions

Agricultural Rates Act, 1896

Petition from Bingley, against reenactment; to lie upon the Table.

Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday Bill

Petitions in favour, from Attleborough; and Bideford; to lie upon the Table.

Sale of Intoxicating Liquors to Children Bill

Petitions in favour, from Tredegar (eight); Glasgow (two); Stockton Heath; Birmingham; London; Dallymena; Orpington; Sidcup; Blackpool; Erith;. Hebden Bridge; Houghton-le-Spring (four); Camberwell (two); Gravesend; West Bristol; Putney; Norwich (two); Chertsey; Attleborough; Wood Green (ten); Hornsey; Dalston; Bowes Park;. and Noel Park; to lie upon the Table.

Sale of Intoxicating Liquors to Children (Scotland) Bill

Petition from Glasgow, in favour; to lie upon the Table.

Returns, Reports, Etc

Prisons (England and Wales)

Paper [presented 26th June] to be printed. [No. 235.]

Paper [presented 26th June] to be printed. [No. 236.]

Paper [presented 26th June] to be printed. [No. 237.]

Mint

Copy presented, of Thirty-first Annual Report of the Deputy Master of the Mint, 1900 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

Colonial Reports (Annual)

Copy presented, of Report No. 325 (Gambia, Annual Report for 1900) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

Trade Reports (Annual Series)

Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2636 to 2639 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

Trade Reports (Miscellaneous Series)

Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Miscellaneous Series, No. 556 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

Boiler Explosions (His Majesty's Ships)

Return ordered, "of the number of Explosions or serious leakages in water- tube boilers which have been attended with injury or loss of life since their adoption in His Majesty's Navy, naming the types of boilers in each case."—( Mr. Kearley. )

Questions

South Africa—Sir David Barbour's Report on Finances

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state when the House will have an opportunity of discussing Sir David Barbour's Report on the Finances of the Transvaal and Orange River Colony.

had on the Paper a similar question.

At present I am not able to suggest a date for the discussion of the Report.

Will an opportunity be given?

I am afraid that I cannot give any information on that subject. It is possible that there may be an opportunity in Committee of Supply.

Might not a discussion of the Report be taken on the Loan Bill, seeing that Sir David Barbour recommends in his Report that fifty-five millions of loan should be discharged out of the fund?

^* : I think Sir David Barbour's Report refers to the earlier loans, and not to this one.

Lands Settlement Commission

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government propose taking any steps to carry out the recommendations of the recent Lands Settlement Commission, South Africa, in respect of the financial assistance to settlers, the imposition of military obligations upon them, and the compulsory acquisition of the land by the State for settlement purposes; and whether an opportunity will be afforded of discussing the Report and its recommendations.

His Majesty's Government have not yet arrived at any decision on the recommendations of this Report, and do not propose to do so till Lord Milner has returned and has had an opportunity of further considering the whole question on the spot.

Military Employment of Natives

In the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the correspondence between the military authorities in Natal and the Prime Minister of Natal, and Mr. E. A. Brunner (member of the Legislative Assembly of Natal), relating to the employment of Zulus in raids on the frontier of Natal has yet been received; and, if so, when it will be presented to Parliament.

A considerable amount of correspondence has been received, but I understand there is to be a commission of inquiry on the spot, and it seems necessary to await the result before I can say whether there will be any Papers to be laid.

Camps of Detention—Religious Ministrations

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether all ministers of religion who desire to visit the prison camps in South Africa are at liberty to do so, and whether permission to visit the camps has been refused to any minister on the ground of his political opinions.

^* : Arrangements have been made by which ministers are resident in or near all refugee camps. I have no information bearing on the further point put by the hon. Member, but permits to visit the camps would be properly denied to ministers who used opportunities only intended for religious ministration to excite political feeling.

Does that refer to the case of the Rev. Mr. Hofmeyer, a disgraced and dismissed minister and a political propagandist?

[No answer was returned.]

It is most scandalous.

Answer, answer.

^* : Order, order!

Vlakfontein

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state the previous experience in the present war of General Dixon, who was in command of the troops engaged in Vlakfontein in May last with the loss of 174 killed and wounded and the temporary capture of two guns; when did General Dixon leave this country for South Africa, and what post did he hold at the time he was placed under orders for active service, and on whose recommendation was he placed in command at Vlakfontein, and will any inquiry be held into the manner in which the troops were handled in that engagement.

^* : General Dixon, who had commanded the 25th Regimental District for two years, left England for South Africa in February last. Like other officers sent to the front, he was placed in command by Lord Kitchener; who will no doubt deal with this occurrence, like others in the war, as he thinks proper.

Will there be any inquiry into this, or will the Magersfontein rule apply?

^* : Order, order!

Lord Kitchener's Despatches

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the War Office will, with the aid of Lord Kitchener's published telegrams for the last two months, present such a statement of the progress of the operations in South Africa during that period as will enable the public to apprehend and follow the course of events at the seat of war.

^* : I have just received a despatch from Lord Kitchener, which is being printed, and will be published at once.

Lord Kitchener's Demand for Reinforcements

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the date of Lord Kitchener's last demand for reinforcements of mounted troops; what were the numbers of men and horses then requested by Lord Kitchener; and what was the reply of the War Office to that demand.

Lord Kitchener asked, without specifying numbers, for some Yeomanry drafts and Colonial troops, to replace time-expired men, on the 20th December last. He has not made any further request for mounted troops. In reply we sent out immediately 800 Mounted Infantry, two Cavalry regiments, and further Cavalry drafts—making up 4,000 men, besides a further Australasian contingent. We also increased the monthly supply of horses. Early in January the second contingent of Imperial Yeomanry, now numbering 16,400, began to be raised, and before the end of March over 30,000 men for mounted service had been despatched to South Africa.

Lord Kitchener's Mounted Forces

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state how many effective mounted men Lord Kitchener has at his disposal for the conduct of the campaign in South Africa; and whether his official correspondence shows that Lord Kitchener is satisfied both as to the numbers and quality of these mounted troops; if not, whether immediate steps will be taken to meet his wishes with a view to bringing the campaign to a speedy conclusion.

I cannot say, without a careful Return from South Africa, which would take much labour to prepare, the number of effective mounted troops now in South Africa, but our Returns on 17th June show between 70,000 and 80,000 mounted men. From these there would be a considerable deduction for sick and non-effectives, and no statistics can be regarded as accurate without being checked locally. Lord Kitchener is to my knowledge fully satisfied as to the number and quality of these mounted troops, and has in the last month refused certain additions of men which we offered him.

Attack on Standerton Convoy

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state what particulars, if any, has the War Office received of the attack on the convoy between Bethel and Standerton, when an officer of the Munsters and five men were killed, and upwards of twenty wounded; and what explanation, if any, has the War Office to give for the publication of the statement of the casualties without any details of the engagement.

No further information of this engagement has been received from South Africa beyond the bare list of casualties.

Has the right hon. Gentleman inquired for the information?

No, Sir, I have not. It appears to have been a small skirmish, and if Lord Kitchener had attached any importance to it he would no doubt have telegraphed particulars.

Farm Burning—Correspondence Between Lord Roberts and General Botha

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can say when the correspondence between Lord Roberts and General Botha on farm burning will be laid upon the Table of the House.

I hope to lay it on the Table at the end of this week.

Destruction of Private Property in War

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any record is kept of the private property taken and destroyed by the British forces in South Africa, and whether they are still permitted to destroy the crops and farming implement of the Boer farmers.

The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. In regard to the second part, I must ask the hon. Member to refer to my reply to a question put by the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division of Nottinghamshire on the 10th instant.

Captures by Boers

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the number of prisoners that have been taken and liberated by the Boers.

The hon. Member will find all the information available in the daily casualty lists and in the monthly summary of casualties.

Cost of the War

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state for how long a period the Estimates at present voted will enable him to carry on the war in South Africa at the present pressure without presenting further Estimates for the sanction of the House.

I am not in a position to make any statement on this point at present.

When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to be able to make a statement?

I cannot fix any date until I get the necessary information.

^* See Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. xciv., page 1458.

Boer Prisoners at St. Helena—Case of Godefroy

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that a young man named Godefroy, son of the Rev. Mr. Godefroy, of Pretoria, was shot in the camp of Boer prisoners in St. Helena by a British sentry on the 19th February, 1901; will he state what cause was alleged by the sentry for shooting this prisoner, what was the nature of inquiry held, and what was the result of the inquiry.

No information of this occurrence has reached the War Office, but I will inquire.

Returned Volunteers' Furloughs

On behalf of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Broadhurst), I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state whether Volunteers who have recently returned from South Africa are entitled to only seven days leave upon being disbanded, and can he explain why Volunteers with previous service have not yet received the good conduct pay to which they are entitled; whether Volunteers who have served over a year in South Africa are entitled to an extra six months gratuity; and, if so, when it will be paid.

It has already been repeatedly explained that Volunteers on return from South Africa will be granted thirty days furlough on discharge, and, if they have served over a year, a gratuity of £5. There is no reason to suppose that the good conduct pay due to the men has not been paid, but if the hon. Member will specify any particular case I will have it investigated at once.

Will that also apply to the Yeomanry and Militia?

No; they are serving under different terms of engagement, and a different gratuity will be paid them on their return.

Johannesburg Relief Funds

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in the month of January last, the military authorities in Johannesburg refused to allow to be cashed a draft for £300 which had been received by the local committee for the relief of the women and children in the prison camp at Johannesburg; and the committee were consequently obliged to return this draft and another for a similar amount to Cape Town, unused, at a time when the urgent need for relief existed; and whether every facility is now afforded to committees, irrespective of nationality or politics, to convey relief in money or goods to women and children detained in prison camps in South Africa.

I am not aware of the matters alleged in the first paragraph. Every facility is afforded to committees to convey relief to the refugee camps under the superintendence of the Burgher Camps Committee. The facilities afforded and the assistance rendered have been acknowledged by the Netherlands Benevolent Society.

Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire whether the facts are correctly stated in my question. Have two drafts had to be returned in consequence of the refusal by the military authorities of permission to cash them?

[No answer was returned.]

Paadekop Reverse

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can give any information as to the circumstances under which Lieutenant Huth and twenty-four men were captured at Paadekop on 16th June; whether there were any casualties on the occasion; and whether he can state why no official or other news of this incident has been allowed to reach the public in this country until 26th June.

No information other than that published in the list of casualties has reached the War Office.

Lovat's Scouts

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the recognition by Lord Kitchener and Sir Archibald Hunter of the services rendered in South Africa by Lovat Scouts, and also in view of the fact that there were 1,100 applications for the two new companies recently raised, the Government will consider the advisability of increasing the numbers of the corps.

Lord Kitchener was asked on 31st May whether more Lovat's Scouts would be required beyond 250 raised to relieve those returning, and has replied that he does not think it likely more will be wanted.

Are any men being sent out to replace the wastage by war in the Yeomanry?

Not at present, but 16,400 men were sent out in February and March.

Are these men giving entire satisfaction to Lord Kitchener?

Yes, I have said so.

Reorganisation of the Army Medical Service—Committee of Experts

^* : I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can now state what progress he has made with his scheme of reform of the Army Medical Service, when he proposes to bring it forward, and what opportunity will be afforded the House of discussing it; and if he can give any information as to the composition of the Committee he proposed to appoint to advise in the matter.

The following Questions also appeared on the Paper:—

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether any Committee has yet been appointed to. inquire into the present condition of the Royal Army Medical Corps; and, if not, whether he will consider the advisability of making as early an appointment of such Committee as possible, and will he state the class of persons he intends asking to serve, as well as the nature of the reference to the Committee.

To ask the Secretary of State for War if a decision has been arrived at as regards the composition of the Commission which it is proposed to appoint to inquire into the grievances of Royal Army Medical officers.

I have received a number of suggestions and representations from various quarters, and a committee of experts to consider the scheme which I have drawn up for the future organisation of the Army Medical Service will shortly be assembled. The Committee will consist of the following members:—Mr. Howard H. Tooth, M.D., F.R.C.P., St. Bartholomew's Hospital; Mr. George H. Makins, F.R.C.S., St. Thomas' Hospital; Mr. Alfred D. Fripp, C.B., C.V.O., M.S., F.R.C.S., Guy's Hospital; Sir F. Treves, K.C.V.O., C.B., F.R.C.S., London Hospital; Mr. Alexander Ogston, M.D., Surgeon, Scotland; Lieut.-Colonel Keogh, M.D., C.B., R.A.M.C., Ireland; Mr. E. C. Perry, M.D., F.R.C.P., Senate of London University; Surgeon General Hooper, C.S.I., President of the Medical Board, India Office. The secretary will be Major H. E. R. James, R.A.M.C., and I propose to take the chair of the Committee myself.

Is there any chance that the Committee will close its sittings before the end of the present session?

I cannot say what time the Committee will find it necessary to pursue its labours. I think it is much more important that they should come to a correct conclusion than that we should hurry them in the performance of the task assigned to them.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great difficulty of getting candidates for the Army Medical Corps, which will amount to an impossibility if before long the intentions of the Government are not made known?

I dare say the difficulty will be accentuated, but I would rather make a temporary arrange- ment and put the corps on a permanently good footing than be in a hurry.

^* : May I ask whether the list of names read contains the name of a consulting surgeon who, at the time when the medical deficiences were most apparent and most fatal in their results, stated that—

^* : Order, order! That is an argument upon the answer. The question was whether there was to be a Commission and what were the names of those who were to act. The hon. Member is not entitled to comment on the names.

Is there any Irishman on the Committee?

Yes, the Irish representative is Lieut.-Colonel Keogh, who has a distinguished reputation and has done good service in South Africa.

Why does not the right hon. Gentleman put on the Committee some representative teacher of the Irish Medical Schools? No member of the Committee has a well-known name among Irish medical teachers, and—

^* : Order, order! Comments on the answer of the right hon. Gentleman are not in order.

Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that medical officers shall be allowed to give evidence before the Committee as to their grievances?

I cannot give any undertaking. The object is to consider a scheme for the reorganisation of the Army Medical Service. There is no idea of taking evidence as to the grievances and general condition of the officers and service.

Then how are you going to find out—

^* : Order, order!

RöNtgen Rays in Military Hospitals

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Army Medical Department has made any report as to the application and value of the use of Röntgen rays in the military hospitals in South Africa during the war; whether expert instruction has been given in the several hospitals in applying "X" rays; and whether illustrated records have been btained for future guidance.

No report has been made on the use of Röntgen rays in the war, nor will be made until the war is over. Instruction is given in certain hospitals at home in the method of applying the "X" rays, but could not be readily given in South Africa. Illustrated records have been obtained, and a large number have been forwarded to the Army Medical School.

Did not the right hon. Gentleman tell us last September that the war was over?

Military Courts-Martial—Deputy Judge Advocate General

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the proceedings of the courts-martial have been from time to time deposited in the office of the Judge Advocate General in London, and whether copies can now be obtained; I beg also to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, considering the importance of many of the courts-martial that have been held in South Africa and the increase in the work of the department, the Government will now consider the propriety of appointing a Minister of the Crown to be Judge Advocate General, so that he may be responsible to this House.

Perhaps I may be allowed to reply to these questions. Proceedings of the courts-martial in South Africa have been sent regularly to the office of the Judge Advocate General in London, and copies can be obtained there. In view of the increase of work in that office, an additional Deputy Judge Advocate General was appointed. The appointment suggested was deliberately abandoned by the Government of the day some years ago, and would not appear either necessary or expedient. The business of the department, under the present Judge Advocate General, is in a very satisfactory condition.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give me the name of the official referred to?

Yes, I will communicate it to the hon. Gentleman.

Recruiting Statistics

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the number of men recruited from the 27th April last to the end of May, and the number of specials among such recruits.

The numbers of recruits for the Regular Army in the period were 3,029, and of these 1,042 were specials.

Mounted Troops in the United Kingdom

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state the actual number of mounted men, Regular cavalry, Yeomanry, and mounted infantry, respectively, now under training in the United Kingdom.

The strength of mounted non-commissioned officers and men in the United Kingdom is as follows: Household Cavalry, 1,478; cavalry of the Line, 11,493; Yeomanry, 10,527; mounted infantry, 850. It is impossible to say how many are under training at any one time.

Seaforth Militia

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will explain why the Seaforth Militia, numbering upwards of 600 men, were not allowed on their return from Egypt to proceed in their uniform to Stornoway, especially in view of the fact that the reception committee had arranged for their uniform to be collected and packed in the volunteer drill hall at that place.

The usual procedure was followed. I cannot give answers as to the proceedings of reception committees.

Soldiers in Civil Prisons—Case of Thomas Ryan

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a soldier named Thomas Ryan, who was sentenced to three years penal servitude for being found asleep on guard, is now serving that sentence in Stafford County Gaol; can he state whether Ryan is being treated as a civil or military prisoner, and by what authority he is sent to Stafford Gaol instead of an Irish prison, where his friends might see him; and can he now state what decision Lord Roberts came to in this man's case.

Ryan is serving his sentence in Stafford Gaol, and was sent there by the orders of the Home Office, as he is treated as a civil prisoner. No information can yet be given as regards the last paragraph of the question.

asked if all prisoners convicted of this offence had been treated in like manner. His information was that they had not.

promised to inquire.

Volunteer Practice Ammunition

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the Colchester Rifle Club are able to buy their cartridges at a rate £1 per 1,000 cheaper than the War Office will supply them; and whether he will take steps to arrange that the War Office supply cartridges at a rate at least as low as that of private firms.

The cartridges supplied by the War Office have passed the War Office inspection in respect of quality, and are sold at the lowest possible price. There is nothing to prevent rifle clubs from purchasing ammunition of a cheaper quality, if they so wish.

Soldiers' Separation Allowances

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, in view of the fact that the War Office grants separation allowance to the wife of a man on active service for the child or children of her previous marriage, whether he can explain why the War Office refuses to grant any allowance for the same child or children after the man has lost his life in the service of his country.

Separation allowance is granted because the State separates a man from his family, which he is bound by law to maintain. A pension is granted in respect of, and as a reward for, a man's services to the State, and not with the view to the maintenance of another man's children.

Soldiers Under Twenty Years of Age

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state how many men under twenty have been sent to South Africa since the beginning of the war, and how many men there are under twenty in the Regular forces now at home.

About 8,000 men under twenty have been sent out to South Africa, and are mostly employed on the lines of communication. There are about 35,000 men under twenty serving in the Regular forces at home.

Do the 8,000 include the irregular forces?

No, the figure only applies to the Regulars.

Army Contracts in Ireland

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has received a resolution from the Dublin Trades Council, urging the readjustment of the relations between the Contracts and Supplies Department, as recommended in the evidence of the Commander-in-Chief in Ireland on War Office Organisation; and that effect should be given to the resolutions adopted at the Sligo Trades Congress by establishing workshops attached to the Military barracks in the principal districts in Ireland similar to what obtain in Great Britain, and by reopening a receiving depot in Ireland.

The resolution has reached the War Office. I cannot give any opinion on it at present.

Army Service Corps Depot in Manchester

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the old cavalry barracks in Manchester are to be permanently occupied by a depot company of the Army Service Corps, and whether it is the intention of the Government to establish a permanent depot in Manchester for the North-Western Division; and, if so, whether the Government will consider the advisability of rebuilding the cavalry barracks so as to meet the requirements of an Army Service Corps.

The occupation of these barracks by the Army Service Corps is only a temporary arrangement.

Gibraltar Bank Stoppage

On behalf of the hon. Member for North Aberdeen, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state the result of the inquiry into the stoppage of payment by the bank of Messrs. Cuby and Son, at Gibraltar, a semi-private bank kept by a man belonging to the class of moneylenders as distinct from that of bankers; whether he has any official information to the effect that regimental funds have been allowed to accumulate balances at this bank in excess of the regulations, and, if so, can he say to what extent, and why one sergeants' mess which requested leave to remove its money from the bank was refused; and will he state who is to be held responsible for the regimental sums invested in such a bank instead of with a recognised bank.

There was no knowledge in the War Office of the status of Messrs. Cuby's bank, but locally the head of the firm was held in esteem. Regimental funds were in their hands, but no one fund was higher than the regulations permit. One mess did request to have its balance transferred to another bank, but the officer in command declined to transfer the account as no reason was given for such action. The total loss cannot he ascertained until the affairs of the bank are liquidated, but at the time of suspension of payment it was held to be £2,962.The question raised in the last paragraph is under consideration.

Gibraltar Works

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can state what decision has been arrived at with respect to the further progress of the naval works at Gibraltar.

It is proposed to continue and complete the bulk of the works contemplated on the western side of the Rock, including No. 2 Dock and the workshops. A portion of the storehouses, however, will not be built. The direct saving effected by arresting the works would be small, while the indirect loss, due to the expenditure of money upon the incomplete work and to payments to the contractor for services already rendered in respect of these works, would be large. The Admiralty are of opinion that the additional dock on the western side will be of great value to the Mediterranean Fleet in peace time, and may also be of the highest value in a maritime war. A dock on the eastern side, to be completed ten or fifteen years hence, will not, however desirable in itself, serve as a substitute for No. 2 Dock on the western side, which is it hoped may be completed at an early date. The recommendations of the Gibraltar Committee with respect to the storage of inflammable articles and war stores on the eastern side of the Rock will be carried out. The Admiralty have given careful attention to the recommendations of the Committee to the effect that an enclosed harbour and dock should be constructed on the eastern side of the Rock at an expenditure which the Committee estimate at upwards of five millions sterling. The Admiralty recognise that such a harbour and dock would be of value under certain circumstances, and they are about to institute careful surveys to enable them to determine what would be the actual cost incurred and what would be the time occupied in completing the works. When this information has been received they will consider the further question as to whether, in view of the general needs of the Navy throughout the world, the large sum necessary can be most profitably expended upon this or upon some other service.

May I ask when the Naval Works Bill, on which this decision can be discussed, is likely to be introduced?

That question should be addressed to the Leader of the House.

I have to ask leave to make a short personal explanation with respect to the Papers presented to Members to-day as to the Admiralty works at Gibraltar. They consist, first, of the Report of 30th March, 1901; secondly, of the answers to questions, which I observe are headed "Interim Report," although that does not appear on my copy; and thirdly, of the final Report of 16th May, 1901, in which the following phrase occurred, which I think likely to lead to some misunderstanding. Admiral Raw-son said, in his final Report of May 16th—

"We have now completed our inquiries and deliberations, and I have the honour to submit this final Report, in which Sir William Nicholson and Mr. Matthews entirely concurred. Mr. Gibson Bowles informed me that he could not entertain the Report, and therefore declined to discuss it or take any further part in our proceedings."

That phrase, which has been perhaps inadvertently chosen, might, I think, lead to the conclusion or belief that the final Report with which I refused to concur was this final Report. That is not so. The draft final Report submitted to me, and which I refused to accept, was an entirely different document.

New Royal Yacht

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether an inspection of the Royal Yacht was made by an Admiralty expert for the purpose of testing her final draft and trim shortly before her floating out when her instability was first discovered; if so, can he state the weight then built in, and what was the nature of the report made to the Admiralty.

^* : No inspection or testing of the final draft and trim by an expert official took place shortly before the floating out of the Royal Yacht. At the time the vessel was floated, her total weight was 4,550 tons, including about 3,260 tons of hull.

Beef Supply to the Channel Squadron at Berehaven

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that the beef supplied to the Channel Squadron at Castletown, Berehaven, is slaughtered at Birkenhead; whether the contractor is required by the terms of his contract to have it freshly killed; and, if so, whether he will make inquiry into this matter.

^* : I have no information to the effect that beef supplied to the Channel Squadron at Castletown Berehaven is slaughtered at Birkenhead. No complaint has been made of the meat received at Castletown, Berehaven, and there appears to be no necessity for making further inquiry into the matter.

Will the hon. Gentleman inquire where this meat is brought from?

^* : No, Sir; as long as the terms of the contract are fulfilled, that is all we are concerned with.

Victoria Memorial in India

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the Viceroy's appeal to the princes and rajahs of India on behalf of the Victoria Memorial, and having regard to the fact that the cost of the Imperial Institute at Kensington has been largely defrayed by the princes of India, the Government propose to apply any portion of the sum paid by the University of London for its accommodation at the Imperial Institute towards the Victoria Memorial in India.

This question is based on a misapprehension of the facts. The University has paid nothing for its accommodation in the Imperial Institute buildings.

Uganda Railway—Colonel Gracey's Report

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has now considered the Report of Colonel Gracey on the Uganda Railway; and, if so, whether he will lay the Report upon the Table of the House.

I hope shortly to lay Colonel Gracey's Report and other Papers relating to the Uganda Railway on the Table of the House.

Papers on Crete

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now state when the promised Papers relating to Crete will be issued; and whether they will include copies of the notes addressed to the Powers by the High Commissioner of Crete during the years 1899 and 1900, and the report of H.R.H. upon the internal administration of that island, together with the Memorandum of the Committee of Ambassadors at Rome with reference to that Report.

The Papers which I promised respecting the administration and financial condition of Crete up to the end of last year are contained in the Parliamentary Paper Turkey No. 1 (1901), which was distributed on the 25th of May. As I informed the hon. Member on the 22nd of April no reports such as are mentioned in the question are included in them. It would not be expedient at present to publish any of the communications which have passed between the Powers and the High Commissioner, nor the reports of the Ambassadors at Rome, but His Majesty's Government will consider later whether any such Papers can be presented.

Arabi Pasha

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing that Arabi Pasha has stated that he is without the means to take his family back to Egypt, it is the intention of the Government to provide transport for him and his family.

His Majesty's Government are not aware that Arabi Pasha has made any statement of the nature referred to. The matter would in the first instance be one for the consideration of the Egyptian Government.

Will Arabi Pasha continue to receive the allowance made to him by the Government?

^* : That does not arise out of the question.

With all respect, Sir, does it not arise on the statement that Arabi has no means to bring his family home?

^* ruled that it did not.

I will put a question down to-morrow.

Germany and the Farsan Islands

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can inform the House whether Germany has occupied the Farsan Islands in the Red Sea, and has arranged with Turkey for the cession of a strip of territory on the Arabian coast.

His Majesty's Government have received no information to the effect stated in the question.

Will the noble Lord inquire?

[No answer was returned.]

Coal Duty Exemptions

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state the estimated loss of revenue entailed by his proposed modifications of the coal tax in respect of contracts and in respect of cheaper coals; and how he proposes to make up the deficiency caused there by.

I am not in a position to give any more precise statement of the loss to this year's yield of the coal duty by the exemption granted to existing contracts than I gave the other day. It will take some time to as certain how many of such contracts are covered. The loss by the exemption of coal not exceeding a value f.o.b. of 6s. a ton will be very much less. I put it for the present at £100,000, but this is subject to further inquiry as to the extent to which coal of this class would profit by the exemption under existing contracts. I have no present intention of taking any steps of the nature suggested in the last part of the question.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now clearly define the classes of contracts made before 19th April, 1901, which are to be exempted from the coal duty down to 31st December of this year; and whether all or which of the following will be treated in the favoured class, namely, contracts for sale to foreign buyers which were wholly uncovered on 20th April, similar contracts which were partly covered by that date, and similar contracts which were wholly covered between 19th April and the date on which a demand is put forward for remission of duty.

I think my statement the other day was perfectly clear. The classes of contracts are f.o.b. and c.i.f. contracts if, and so far as, covered before 19th April, 1901. Uncovered contracts would not be exempted. The question seems to suggest that the cover might be postponed perhaps for months after the date of the contract for sale, but that would be no cover at all.

City of London Police

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, considering that the Commissioner of Police for the City of London acts altogether independently of the Home Office, and that he is also independent of the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of the City of London, whether he will consider the advisability of amalgamating the City of London Police with the Metropolitan Police with a view to rendering the Commissioner of Police for the City more responsible to His Majesty's Government.

^* : The Commissioner of Police for the City of London, although, speaking generally, he acts independently of the Home Office, is subject to the control of the Lord Mayor and Aldermen. His Majesty's Government have no intention of introducing legislation to amalgamate the City and Metropolitan Police.

Corporal Punishment in Gaols

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in the Return presented to the House of all sentences of corporal punishment inflicted upon prisoners between the 1st day of January and the 31st day of December, 1900, the number of strokes ordered by the respective judges were in fact inflicted; and whether there were any cases during the said period in which the whole or any part of a sentence of flogging was remitted or was not imposed; and, if so, whether he will give the number and state the details of such cases mentioned in the Return.

^* : The full number of lashes ordered was not in all cases inflicted. In four cases in which each prisoner had been sentenced to two separate floggings the second floggings were omitted, and in more than one other case the full number of lashes was not imposed on account of the prisoners being physically unfit to receive them; but with regard to these latter cases I have not the exact figures before me.

Factory and Workshop Acts Irish Tailoring Trade

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will take advantage of the Committee now sitting to amend the Factory and Workshop Acts so as to give effect to the request of the Irish Trades Congress sent to him to have it made imperative that all employers in the tailoring trade shall be compelled to provide sufficient and suitable workshops for all those employed at that trade; and whether he will also propose a clause making it illegal to have the work of clothes making in bedrooms or living rooms by out workers.

^* : The questions raised by the hon. Member are amongst those which I have considered in drafting the Bill, and he will find in it provisions which go as far in the direction indicated as I think practicable.

Glasgow Electric Cars—Wire Fatalities

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the breakdown of the overhead wires, in connection with the electric car system, which occurred in the Sandyford district of Glasgow shortly after 11 p.m. on the evening of Saturday the 15th instant, and which resulted in the fusing of the trolley wire and several explosions; and, seeing that there might have been a loss of life if this had happened during the busy part of the day, will he call for a report on the subject, with a view to ascertain whether any steps can be taken which will lessen the risk of such accidents.

I have received a report of the accident alluded to by the hon. Member, and have referred it to the Board's electrical adviser to consider whether any steps can be taken to lessen the risk of such accidents.

Merchant Sailors' Rations—Case of the "Leicester Castle."

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to communications from seamen of the "Leicester Castle," trading from Newcastle to San Francisco and from thence to Tal Tal and Caleta Buena, complaining of insufficient food and stating that but for food given to them by foreign sailors they would have been practically starved, and that for a great part of the voyage there were no side lights and no lime juice for the crew; whether he is aware that an ordinary seaman of the "Leicester Castle" was taken to a lazarette and flogged; and whether he will state what steps he has taken to deal with the matters set forth in the communications: and whether, in view of the complaints of seamen in the British mercantile marine, he will recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into such questions as food, treatment, and the manning of British ships generally. I wish to explain that the question does not refer to the present owners of the vessel.

No, Sir, I have not received, nor have I yet been able to obtain, any information with regard to the allegations referred to in the question. The firm which has owned the "Leicester Castle" since January, 1900, has informed us that they know nothing of any such occurrences having taken place. If the hon. Member will give me more definite information, such as the date of the voyage, etc., further inquiry shall be made. With regard to the last paragraph of the question, I can add nothing to the answer which I gave the hon. Member on the 24th of this month.†

Is it not the fact that several communications have been addressed to and acknowledged by the Board of Trade, and that because nothing has been done I have been induced to put this question down?

Order, order! The right hon. Gentleman cannot say what the hon. Member's motives were.

† See preceding volume, page 1211.

North-East Coast Fisheries—Trawlers' and Fishermen's Nets

^* : I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the destruction of fishermen's nets by trawlers on the north-east coast on the night of 20th June; and whether, seeing that such wilful acts of destruction are of frequent occurrence, he will adopt some more stringent measures with a view of putting an end to such practices.

No, Sir, I have not received any information as to the damage to fishermen's nets referred to in the hon. Member's question beyond the newspaper cutting which he has been good enough to send me. The regulations as to the maintenance of order between fishermen in the North Sea outside of territorial waters are enforced as far as possible by cruisers which the Admiralty assign for the purpose. I shall be happy to direct the attention of the Admiralty to the complaint.

Boarded-Out Pauper Children

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will state the number of certified committees having charge of poor law children boarded out within the union; also the number of children dealt with by such committees.

According to the latest Return, there are 102 committees actually taking charge of poor children boarded within the unions to which they belong, and the number of such children is 1,846.

Cloudesley Estate Fund, Islington

I beg to ask the Parliamentary representative of the Charity Commissioners whether he will state the present number of the trustees of the Cloudesley Estate Fund, Islington; whether the trustees have rendered to the Charity Commissioners copies of their cash accounts for the two years ended 31st March; and, if so, whether they are open to public inspection; and what is the balance of the annual income of the trust fund above £1,000 paid over by the trustees during the two years ended the 31st March last to the official trustees of charitable funds, and invested in accordance with the Charity Commission scheme of 5th August, 1873.

^* : The present number of trustees is fourteen, but an application is before the Commissioners to fill up the number to eighteen, as fixed by the scheme of 5th August, 1873. The accounts for the two years ending 31st March last have not been rendered, but the Commissioners have applied for them, and when received they will be open to public inspection. No balance of the annual income of the charity above £1,000 has as yet been paid by the trustees to the Official Trustees of Charitable Funds, and invested in accordance with the direction of the above-mentioned scheme.

Is it the intention of the Commissioners to make up the trustees to eighteen, and will a representative of this borough of Islington be put on?

^* : As I said, an application is now before the Commissioners, and I understand that four additional trustees will be appointed. In doing so, all representations will be carefully considered

Foreign Prison-Made Goods

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Foreign Prison-made Goods Act, 1897, is now being enforced; and will he state what goods, in quantity or value, have been seized in each year since the passing of the Act.

Yes, Sir; the Act is being enforced, and 126 bundles of mats have been seized under its provisions.

Brehon Laws

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state what public moneys have been expended on the publication of the Brehon Laws since 1879; when Dr. Atkinson, the present editor, was appointed, and what were the terms of remuneration; whether it is the duty of the editor to submit his work to a committee before sending sheets to the press; and, if so, has the present editor submitted his work; and whether, in view of the lapse of over twenty years since the last volume of the Brehon Laws was issued, and of the importance of having the remaining volumes expeditiously and economically published, he would publish the remaining portions of the manuscripts in photo-zincography without any editing or translation, thereby enabling competent Irish and European scholars to complete the work.

The payments for work subsequent to Volume IV., which was published in 1879, have been:—for editing, £271 19s.; for printing and paper, £112 11s. 6d. Dr. Atkinson was appointed editor in 1885, and will be paid at the same rate as previous editors—namely, 8 guineas a sheet. It is not his duty to submit his work to a committee. It is anticipated that Dr. Atkinson will complete his work by the end of the summer, and there would, therefore, appear to be no need for the alteration suggested by the hon. Member.

Mallaig Mails

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he will state to what extent the conveyance of Stornoway mails to Mallaig has accelerated their delivery in Glasgow, Edinburgh, and London, respectively; and will he say what sum is paid to the mail steamer contractor for the service to Mallaig over and above the contract for the mail packet service between Kyle of Lochalsh and Stornoway.

:Under existing arrangements the, conveyance of Stornoway mails, to Mallaig has accelerated their delivery in Glasgow by about five hours, and in Edinburgh by about two hours. If an acceleration of the train service from Mallaig, proposed for the months of July, August, September, and October, is carried out to the full extent, the delivery in Edinburgh by that route will be still further accelerated by about two hours. It should, however, be stated that under an acceleration also proposed of the train service from Kyle during those four months, the time of delivery at Edinburgh and Glasgow would practically be the same, whether the mails were forwarded via Mallaig or via Kyle and Inverness. The Mallaig route from Stornoway affords no acceleration of delivery in London as compared with the Kyle route. No payment is made to the mail steamer contractor over and above the contract price for the conveyance of mails from Stornoway between Kyle and Mallaig.

Did I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that no extra payment is made for carrying these mails an extra forty miles?

When I say "no payment is made" I mean that no payment is made.

Foreign Trawlers in Scottish Waters

On behalf of the hon. Member for Banffshire, I beg to ask the Lord Advocate what recommendations, if any, were made at the recent International Conference at Christiania with reference to the exclusion of foreign trawlers from areas in Scottish waters reserved from British trawlers; if any recommendations were made, will be state what steps will be taken to give effect to them.

At the same time, may I ask the Lord Advocate, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, if he will state whether the Under Secretary for Scotland, who represented the British Government at the Hydrographical Conference, held at Christiania on the 6th May last, brought under the notice of the delegates the question of closing the Moray Firth against foreign trawlers, and the extension of the three mile limit; and will he say what decision was arrived at on the subject.

Sir Colin Scott Moncrieff, who was one of the delegates who represented this country at the Christiania Conference, according to his instructions brought forward the case of the Moray Firth, from which, as an experiment which may be said to be in the interest of fisheries common to all nations, British trawlers have now been excluded for a number of years. He pointed out that it had been hoped that the closure of the Moray Firth, in affording an extensive breeding area for young fish, would produce valuable results; but that the experiment had been vitiated in recent years by numbers of foreign trawlers who have disregarded the bye-laws framed for the protection of this area. The subject was therefore carefully discussed at the Conference, and the following resolution was unanimously adopted—

"In distinct areas of the sea, as for example, the Moray Firth, in which any Government has undertaken scientific experiments in the interests of the fisheries, and in which the success of the experiments is being hindered by the operations of trawlers, it is to be desired that measures be adopted for the removal of such hindrances."

The best method of procedure which should follow so important a recommendation as this is now receiving the full consideration of the Government Departments concerned.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last paragraph of my question?

^* : I take it I have answered it. I have given the result of the Christiania Conference, and as the extension of the three-mile limit is not mentioned, I assume no decision was come to on that point.

Food and Drugs Act—Analytical Errors

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the working of the Food and Drugs Act, under which a seller may be prosecuted on the sole ground of the analysis of a local public analyst, who is liable to error, and the public analyst himself may be prosecuted on the grounds that his analysis is wrong; whether, considering the cases whereby sellers can suffer loss owing to a prosecution at the instance of local inspectors, although the prosecution is subsequently withdrawn, he would consider the expediency of introducing legislation to assimilate the working of the Food and Drugs Act to that of the Fertilisers Act in respect of having the analysis of the local analyst revised by skilled analysts of the Local Government Board before proceeding to a prosecution under the Act; is he aware that claims against local authorities by those so injured through unsubstantiated charges are dismissed in the Law Courts as being irrelevant; and will he look into a recent case of such a nature in Aberdeen in which a firm supplying aerated waters suffered loss, with a view of suggesting some method of compensation or redress.

^* : The Act provides that a seller may be prosecuted upon the report of the analyst of a local authority. No prosecution could possibly be brought against an analyst on the simple ground that his analysis was wrong. I am aware that an action of damages against the analyst in Aberdeen was dismissed as irrelevant. No action has, so far as I know, been raised against the local authority. The circumstances of the case in question do not, I think, suggest any special hardship or grievance which calls for remedy by legislation, and in particular the alterations of the law suggested by the hon. Member would, in my judgment, go far to paralyse the working of the Act.

Scottish Burgh Medical Officers of Health

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, if he will state the number of medical officers of health appointed in Scotland to burghs since the 15th May, 1894; and will he say how many of these medical officers hold a public health diploma.

^* : I am informed by the Local Government Board that since 15th May, 1894, seventytwo burgh local authorities have appointed medical officers of health. Except in the case of two of these burghs, all the medical officers of health appointed hold a public health diploma.

Moonlighting in Co. Kerry

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state how many moonlighting outrages have been reported to and by the police as having taken place during the last two months in the county Kerry; whether it has been reported to him that a house belonging to a large farmer named Philip Cremin has been recently attacked, and that it was only on his expressing his willingness to join the United Irish League that the attacking party left, after having fired several shots; and whether any arrests have been made in connection with these outrages.

^* : The outrage referred to in this question is the only one of this character reported from Kerry in the past two months, the facts of which are correctly stated. No arrests have, so far, been made by the police.

Is it not the fact that in this part of Ireland the recorder at the last two quarter sessions has been presented with white gloves because there have been no prisoners for trial?

Was any injury inflicted on any man, woman, or child in connection with this case?

^* : I have nothing to add to the answer I have given to the question.

Agrarian Trouble at Ballinrobe

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a stack of hay belonging to a Mr. Daly, residing near Ballinrobe, was recently burnt; and that Mr. Daly was previously denounced at a meeting of the United Irish League; and have any arrests been made.

Is it in order to ask a question in this House in relation to a case pending trial?

^* : An application has been lodged by Mr. Daly for compensation in respect of the injury mentioned in the first part of the question. Any denunciatory language that may have been used at the meeting referred to will necessarily be involved in the determination of the motive, and, this being so, it would be improper for me to discuss what took place at the meeting. No arrests have, so far, been made in connection with the occurrence.

Agrarian Outrages in Ireland

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state how many cases of houghing and maiming of cattle have been reported to and by the police in Ireland during the last six months; in what counties did such outrages occur, and had the owners of any of these animals been previously denounced by the United Irish League; and in how many cases were persons made amenable.

^* : The number of such outrages committed during the past six months was thirty - one. They occurred in the counties of Down, Tyrone, Kildare, Galway, Mayo, Sligo, Clare, Cork, Kerry, Limerick, Tipperary, and Queen's County. Eight of the thirty-one cases were of an agrarian origin. The owner of one of the animals was on friendly terms with a man who had been held up to odium by the United Irish League. An arrest was made in one case, and the accused is a waiting his trial at assizes.

rose to put supplementary questions, but the Speaker ruled both out of order.

Irish Local Government Board

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how many times the Local Government Board for Ireland sit to administer the duties of their office each week; and whether he is aware that many communications are never brought to the notice of the members of the Board at all, and some of them only when special complaints are made by local authorities of neglect or overlooking; and will he cause inquiries to be made into this complaint.

^* : The Local Government Board sits every day in the week to administer the duties of the Department and every matter requiring a decision, order, or ruling, by the Board is duly submitted to the Board.

Is the work of the Local Government Board done solely by the gentlemen in Dublin or does the right hon. Gentleman deal with particular cases?

^* : Minor cases do not come before me unless some question of policy is involved, but particular matters to which my attention is directed —as is often done—by hon. Members of this House receive my personal attention.

County Councils Association Expenses

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will introduce a Bill applying to Ireland the provisions of The County Councils Association (Scotland) Expenses Act, 1894.

^* : As already stated by me, this matter is under consideration, but I cannot undertake to introduce legislation on the subject during the present session.

Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to introduce a Bill next session?

^* : It is not usual to reply to such questions until the next session arrives.

Meetings on the Custom House Steps at Belfast

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he proposes to take steps to prohibit the collection of money after meetings on the Custom House steps of Belfast, as in the case of Hyde Park.

The reply to this question is in the negative. I am unable to say whether the Belfast Corporation has any power to prohibit the collection of money by means of a bye-law. The collection of money in Hyde Park is forbidden under the Parks Regulation Act of 1892.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Board of Works has the same control over the Custom House steps in Belfast as the Home Office has over Trafalgar Square in London; and, if so, whether the regulations under which meetings are permitted in the latter place will be extended to the former.

^* : The control of the Custom House in Belfast is vested in the Board of Public Works, but the expediency of enclosing the steps with the object of prohibiting, or otherwise regulating meetings there, is, as I have already stated, very doubtful. The regulations under which meetings are permitted in Trafalgar Square are made under statute. No comparison can be drawn between the two places.

Is it not the fact that the Irish Board of Works has control of the Dublin Custom House steps and prevents meetings being held there?

^* : I cannot say. I have given this matter some consideration, but there are difficulties in the way of dealing with it.

Make the same law apply to Belfast as to Dublin.

Belturbet Right-Of-Way Dispute

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the inhabitants of Belturbet have always enjoyed a right-of-way along the river Erne at rear of the military barracks in Belturbet, and can he state for what reasons and under what authority the commanding officer of the 140th Battery Royal Field Artillery has recently put a guard on the pathway and refused to allow the public to use it.

I am in communication with the War Department in this matter. Perhaps the hon. Member will repeat the question on Monday next.

Irish Medical Dispensary Offices

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that expense is caused to boards of guardians, as well as trouble to the medical officers of dispensaries, in Ireland, by the books kept by the doctors in the dispensaries having to be taken to the workhouse to be checked instead of being examined at the dispensary, as before the passing of the Local Government Act, and if he will direct that the books be checked at the dispensaries in the future by a committee appointed as the Local Government Board and guardians may direct.

The following Question also appeared on the Paper:—

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that the Bailie-borough, Bawnboy, Enniskillen, and other boards of guardians have passed resolutions asking the Local Government Board, in order to save expense and trouble, to change their order, which compels the dispensary medical officers to send their books to the board rooms of the union once a month for the purpose of being examined by the guardians, and suggesting that a local committee appointed by the boards of guardians should have power to examine these books in the dispensaries in Ireland, and will he ask the Local Government Board to reconsider this order with a view of complying with the request of a number of boards of guardians in Ireland.

The only committees which a board of guardians is empowered to appoint are those referred to in Section 39 of the Local Government Act for the purpose of the admission of paupers to the union workhouse. The periodical examination of the dispensary books is enjoined by Article 10 of the Dispensary Regulations, the object being to ensure that the whole body of the guardians shall have an opportunity of inspecting the records with a view to the efficient administration of medical relief. These books are usually sent by parcels post, and the practice has been found to work satisfactorily. I will ask the hon. Member for West Cavan to take this as a reply to his question on the same subject.

Has not the right hon. Gentleman received any protests from boards of guardians as to this expense?

No, Sir, my attention has only been drawn to the matter by this question.

Irish Labourers' Cottage Schemes

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the complaints received by the Local Government Board from rural district councils regarding the delays in holding inquiries into improvements schemes under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts; can he explain the cause of these delays, and will he see that adequate provision be made for dealing with this departmental work and removing any grounds of complaint.

Some complaints of this nature have been received. A very considerable number of applications have been lodged during the past eighteen months, and three inspectors were temporarily appointed to cope with the additional work. At present very few cases are awaiting inquiry.

asked as to a scheme of the Cork District Council.

I must ask for notice of that.

Greystones Pier

On behalf of the hon. Member for East Wicklow, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is now in a position to state definitely what steps, if any, the Irish Government proposes to take with regard to the Greystones pier and harbour.

I am not in a position to make any definite announcement on the subject. The work is one which must be considered in connection with others involving expenditure of considerable magnitude.

Londonderry Police

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that although the county boroughs of Cork, Limerick, and Waterford are policed at the expense of the Imperial Exchequer, and that no charge falls on them in this respect, the county borough of Londonderry has, in respect of the year ending 30th September, 1900, to pay a sum of £776 10s. 4d. for its ordinary police force; and that, although at the late census the population of Londonderry exceeded 38,000, the city had only a free quota of police numbering 76 allowed to it, having to pay for an additional fourteen men to make up the permanent police force in the city; and whether, under these circumstances, and considering that every county, every city (except Belfast), every county town and village in Ireland is policed at the expense of the Imperial Exchequer, steps will be taken to remove the treatment in this respect to which the city of Londonderry is subjected, so that in future an absolutely free police force will be allocated thereto.

The facts are as stated in the first paragraph. The borough of Londonderry is policed under a special Act of 1870, the third section of which expressly contemplates the constitution of the "ordinary" police force as partly free and partly chargeable to the rates. There are two other cities similarly circumstanced, Dublin and Belfast, and of the three Londonderry is by far the most favourably treated in the matter of payment for police. The next triennial redistribution of the free force of police cannot take place until 1903, and the claims of Londonderry for an increased free establishment will then be considered in connection with the claims of other localities.

Clonakilty Sanitation

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in the Clonakilty rural district certain sanitary works are not being carried out owing to local objection on the ground of expense; whether, seeing that the Clonakilty Rural District Council, with a view to removing the local objection to the undertaking of those works, have passed resolutions calling on the Government to revert to the original system of making sanitary charges divisional or townlands charges, he will be prepared to give effect to their wishes as soon as practicable.

The question of the areas of charge for special sanitary expenses is under consideration and the Local Government Board are taking steps to as certain the views of the district councils with respect to the chargeability of expenses of sanitary works for populous places other than towns under municipal authorities.

Clonakilty Poor Law Administration

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Clonakilty Board of Guardians recently passed a resolution calling on the Government to amend the Local Government (Ireland) Act so as to have the chargeability of indoor and outdoor relief placed on the electoral division and not on the union at large as at present, which has resulted in an increase of expense; and whether, with a view of ascertaining the necessity for amending the law, he will grant a Return showing the amount expended on out-door relief in each union in Ireland for the half-years ended 29th September, 1898, and 25th March, 1899, before the Act came into operation, and the amount expended during the half-years ended 30th September, 1900, and 31st March, 1901, when the Act was two years in force.

Particulars of the amounts expended on outdoor relief in each union in Ireland will be found in the Board's annual reports. The tables in the last report cover the period ended 31st March, 1900.

Evictions in Leitrim

I wish to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland a question, of which I have given him private notice, namely, whether his attention has been called to the eviction campaign now proceeding at Kiltyclogue, in county Leitrim, whether 100 police are engaged in the campaign; whether the first person evicted was an old woman aged over eighty years, and whether she was left lying in a ditch, and on what grounds were a number of people who were looking on batoned by the police.

^* : I was aware some days ago that the Sheriff of Leitrim proposed to execute sixteen decrees against tenants in the neighbourhood mentioned, and that he had requisitioned protection, which it was, of course, the duty of the Executive to afford. A force of 100 men was ordered to attend for this purpose. In the short interval since I received notice of the question I have not been able to ascertain the facts as to the other matters alluded to by the hon. Member.

I will repeat the question to-morrow.

Longford District Councils—Dispute With Board of Works

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that a writ has been issued against the Longford Urban District Council and the Longford Rural District Council for recovery of a sum of £398 15s. due to the Board of Works, the delay in paying which arose from a dispute as to liability between the two councils; and whether, seeing that they have agreed to an adjustment of their differences by an arbitrator to be sanctioned by the Court of King's Bench, the Council found in default to pay the amount immediately, the Board of Works will stay further proceedings, pending the adjustment.

^* : I am unable to direct the proceedings to be stayed unless the sum sued for be paid, which the councils concerned can readily do, and adjust their respective liabilities afterwards under the arbitration.

Is it not the fact that the meetings of the councils cannot be convened in time?

^* : I think they can be held before further proceedings are taken.

But will not extra costs be incurred? We want to avoid that.

^* : I will consider the matter.

Agriculture and Technical Instruction Act—Dangerous Public Places

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether, seeing that Section 17 of the Agriculture and Technical Instruction (Ireland) Act enables sanitary authorities to close up places dangerous to life, such as open and unprotected canal harbours or basins, effect will be given to this section by the issue of a circular to magistrates explaining its provisions in this direction.

^* : The question seems to be based on an entire misapprehension of the provisions of the statute. If any circular were necessary, which it is not, it should be to the effect that the section does not confer any of the powers mentioned by the hon. Member, but merely enables the department to appear as complainants before the Railway and Canal Commissioners.

Cahirciveen (Kerry) Letter Deliveries

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the consistent unpunctuality in the delivery of letters, especially on fair days, is causing inconvenience to the inhabitants of Cahirciveen, County Kerry; and, seeing that during the fortnight ending 15th June, there being two deliveries daily, the mails were over an hour late on eleven occasions, and on one occasion were two and a quarter hours late, will he take steps to secure greater punctuality in the delivery of the letters in that district.

It is true that the mails have recently been very irregular in arrival at Cahirciveen. Representations on the subject have on several recent occasions been addressed to the railway company concerned, with the view of obtaining a more punctual service in future, and the Postmaster General is considering whether any further steps can be taken in regard to that service.

Were the replies of the railway companies to the representations satisfactory on the whole?

I should say they were not, as the Postmaster General is considering if any further steps can be taken in regard to this service.

Lehanmore Rural Postmen

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to the weekly remuneration received by the rural postal messenger of Lehanmore, County Cork, and whether he will take into consideration this man's case, with a view to increase his wages.

The Postmaster General will cause inquiry to be made, and the result shall be communicated to the hon. Member as soon, as possible.

Telegraphic Delays Between London and Cork

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmatser General, whether his attention has been called to complaints of inconvenience caused by frequent delays in the transmission of telegrams from London to Cork; can he state what is the cause of this irregularity; and will he give the matter early attention and provide a remedy.

:The Postmaster General is aware that at certain hours of the day there has been some delay in the case of telegrams sent from London to Cork. But these messages are generally lengthy market reports, consisting chiefly of figures which require great care in transmission and occupy a longer time than ordinary telegrams. The general traffic appears to be transmitted with reasonable expedition.

Irish National School Buildings

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he can now communicate the result of the promised inquiry by the Board of Works into the proposed increase in estimate for Plan VI. A for the building of national schools in Ireland; and, if not, what is the cause of the delay in completing the inquiry.

The revision of the estimates on which grants towards the cost of the erection of national schools are based has been practically completed, and the new scale will shortly be submitted for the approval of the Commissioners of National Education and of the Treasury.

Will the new scale be laid on the Table?

I cannot say until I have seen it and until it has been approved by the Commission of National Education and the Treasury.

Royal Commission on Irish University Education

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can say if any of the members of the Royal Commission on University Education in Ireland are Presbyterians.

I have not made myself particularly acquainted with the religious denominations to which the members of the Commission belong. The endeavour of the Government has been to choose great educational experts, and I think it is acknowledged by common consent that that has been done.

Has the right hon. Gentleman consulted the heads of any religious bodies?

No, Sir, I have not consulted the Moderator of the Presbyterian Church nor the Roman Catholic Archbishop.

[A further question by Mr. WOLFF and the reply were inaudible.]

Ministry of Commerce

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that a provisional committee has been formed to obtain the appointment of a Minister of Commerce with officials and a consultative committee: and seeing that many Members of Parliament, lord mayors, mayors, aldermen, business firms, and about forty chambers of commerce advocate the formation of this Department, whether he will make further inquiry on the subject.

I am afraid I can add nothing to what I have said before on this matter. It is one which, of course, will not be lost sight of.

Business of the House

Will the Leader of the House indicate the course of business next week?

Next week, and I hope not very late in the week, we propose to conclude the proceedings in Committee on the Finance Bill. After that the second reading of the Loan Bill will be taken.

What about Supply?

As to that I cannot make a final statement, but an intimation has reached me from more than one quarter that hon. Gentlemen would like to have a further discussion on the Naval Vote, and I am contemplating that Vote as the probable business for Friday.

New Member Sworn

Philip Staveley Foster, esquire, for the County of Warwick (South-Western or Stratford-on-Avon Division).

Message from the Lords

That they have agreed to, Purchase of Land (Ireland) Bill; Civil List Bill.

Youthful Offenders

[Expenses]

Considered in Committee:

(In the Committee.)

[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of contributions towards the cost of maintaining in custody children or young persons under any Act of the present session to amend the law relating to Youthful Offenders." —( Mr. Secretary Ritchie. )

said he wished to know from the Home Secretary when it was proposed to take this Bill in Committee upstairs. He thought there ought to be some opportunity given to the local authorities in Scotland, who were interested in this Bill of considering it. This measure was practically the same as the one introduced last year, and although it went a little further so far as the local authorities were concerned—

^* : The hon. Member will not be in order in discussing the Bill.

said he was only discussing the question of the time.

^* : I understand that it is the intention of the Government to put this Bill down for next Tuesday. It was printed at the end of last week, and, as has been stated by the hon. Member for Mid Lanark, it is practically the same Bill as that distributed last year, with one important exception.

thought the Government ought to have made up their mind long before this whether they were going to go on with this Bill or not. The matter was entirely in their hands, and if they neglected to give the local authorities an opportunity of expressing their views they would have to take the consequences.

urged that the Home Secretary should not proceed with the Bill so soon, as it contained an innovation for the consideration of which time was required. The Bill ought to be very carefully considered. There was one clause in. the Bill which threw the responsibility on the parents and that was a very serious matter, and quite an innovation. There ought to be a little more time given so that hon. Members would have an opportunity of putting down Amendments, which would, to some extent, improve that portion of the Bill. He agreed that this was not a highly controversial question, and he hoped the Home Secretary would take into consideration the fact that the House allowed the Bill to be read a second time without discussion. He thought that was a good, reason why they should be given a little more time to consider this Bill.

^* : I will communicate with the noble Lord who is chairman of the Committee upon this question. If the noble Lord sees no objection to this course I shall certainly not oppose the postponement of the Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported to-morrow.

Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second, time.

^* : As this Bill involves a sum of £35,000,000 sterling, and as a large number of the Votes which have been passed in this House cover many matters which we have not had a full and complete discussion upon, I desire now to draw attention to some of these matters. I shall purposely avoid dealing with those questions upon which we have already had a full and lengthy discussion, but new matters have arisen in connection with some of these Votes, and I refer more especially to the item for transports and remounts in connection with the Army. The total expenditure—of which only one half is borne in this Bill—for transports is something like £20,000,000. With reference to remounts, the Bill is responsible for a sum of about three and a half millions, but the total amount which has been covered for this year and last year is as much as seven millions. In fact, although the sum asked for in this Bill in respect of transports and remounts barely touches sixteen millions, the question is much larger than that, the total sum expended during last year and this amounting to twenty-seven millions. Now how has this immense sum been expended on transports and remounts? I should like to point out that transports could have been taken up at something like 12s. or 12s. 6d. per ton before the war, but what happened after the war broke out? Although the Government knew they were about to be involved in war, they took no precautions to deal with this question of transports, and the result was that when they came to take up transports they found themselves obliged to pay between 25s. and 35s. per ton. It might have been somewhat speculative, but if the Government had only shown foresight in this matter they might have obtained their transports at a third of the price which they have been obliged to pay, and thus have saved the country nearly seven millions sterling. I wish also to ask what was paid for the transport of Hungarian horses from Fiume, a point upon which the House is still without information. We do not know to this moment what we paid for them. I am anxious to know if the right hon. Gentleman can tell us what was the cost of the shipping of these Hungarian horses and whether the cost includes the crew, the food for the crew, bunker coals, pilotage, and light and harbour dues. Unless we have these details it is impossible for us to know what proportion of money has been spent upon the various kinds of transport, and we should not be able to see whether the Government took due precautions when dealing with foreign firms.

I am not going to touch upon any subject with which I have already dealt, but I will deal with a completely new phase of the question. I put a question recently to the Secretary of State for War with reference to the purchase of Army remounts in this country. Between 4,000 and 5,000 horses were sold not long ago in Glasgow, and some of them are still being sold. Seeing the great trouble and difficulty we have had in connection with horses in South Africa, and seeing the bad class of horses which have been sent out there, some of which did not last more than three or four days, I wish to ask why the Government have not bought the seasoned horses which were being sold in Glasgow at an average of £26 apiece, in consequence of the introduction of electric traction, because, according to the Estimate of the Secretary of State for War, the average price of an artillery horse mid by the Government was something like £42? The answer I received to my question was that the right hon. Gentleman was aware of the sale in question, but he did not consider that the horses were suitable for artillery service. I never suggested that they should be taken for artillery service, although I submit that they were suitable for that service. It is within the cognisance of all those who have been in South Africa that the very best horses out there were those which were obtained from the London omnibus and tramway companies. If those London horses were suitable, why should the Glasgow horses not be equally suitable? The suburbs of Glasgow are hilly, and the horses from that district ought to be even more suitable than the London horses.

But even if some reason could be urged why the Glasgow horses were not suitable, the same reason could not be urged in regard to the Liverpool horses, where 1,500 horses were sold for the same reason. Did the Government take advantage of that sale in order to obtain some of those horses. No, they did nothing of the kind. I know the answer which the noble Lord will probably give to me. He will probably say that there was, at one time, glanders in one of the suburbs of Glasgow. I am prepared to state that if there was one lot of horses in the United Kingdom which could be absolutely relied upon as being free from glanders, that body of horses was the one which was sold by the Glasgow Tramway Company, because eighteen months ago they were all subjected to the Malline test, which by an injection makes it absolutely certain whether a horse is suffering from glanders or not. That is an acknowledged fact, for in Belgium and even in France the Malline test is accepted not only in courts of law but in scientific circles. Therefore I think we ought to have some explanation upon this score.

There is yet another important matter—I allude to the charge which has been levelled against British officers in connection with the purchase of remounts. When the hon. Baronet the Member for Dulwich made his statement in this House upon this subject, for my part, I thought it was ridiculous, and I did not believe it could be possible in the smallest degree. I have since made inquiries, and I regret very much to have to state that there appeared to be very grave suspicion, and I may say considerable foundation, for what was stated by the hon. Baronet the Member for Dulwich. In the first place, what class of officers were selected for this duty? It was a duty to which was attached great responsibility and which involved the expenditure of large sums of the taxpayers' money. And what class were selected? One would have supposed that there were in this country many retired officers who had great knowledge of horseflesh, who would have been selected for this duty, and who were, at the same time, men in high positions and of ample means who could have been absolutely trusted to carry out this duty. The Government selected from the reserve of officers, from half-pay officers, and from other men who were known to be impecunious, and they did not take the precaution of seeking any security from them. The Government left the public completely at the mercy of any of these gentlemen who happened, owing to his circumstances, to be liable to give way to temptation. I say that it is the manifest duty of the Government to clear this aspersion from the characters of all those officers who have been buying horses for them, for I feel sure that the bulk of those officers would scorn any action of the kind imputed to them. Nevertheless, there was a grave suspicion resting upon some of the officers connected with the remount department which ought to be cleared up. It is believed that, both in America and Germany, illicit profits have been made by those buying remounts for the Government, and though I believe the bulk of these officers would scorn any action of this kind, it is necessary for the Government to institute an independent roving Commission, composed of a business man, a lawyer, a soldier, a veterinary surgeon, and a member of this House, to go to the bottom of this matter, because it involves millions of money, and we have a right to know how this money has been spent.

There is only one other matter with which I would like to deal, and that is the question of military education. A short time ago I received an answer from the Front Bench opposite to the effect that we had in South Africa between 70,000 and 80,000 mounted troops. I was told that Lord Kitchener did not want any more men, and that he had refused reinforcements. I can quite understand that if the reinforcements he refused were of the same kind as those which have recently been sent out to him. Unless those who have communicated by letter with myself and with other hon. Members of this House are making statements to which no credence can be given, undoubtedly the men who have been recently sent out to South Africa have been more trouble than they have been worth. My contention is that all this is due to the system of military education. No steps have been taken in the past to prepare either officers or men for mounted duties. We had at Aldershot at one time a school for the training of Yeomanry. In justice to the first lot of Yeomanry who went out to South Africa, allow me to say that my remarks do not apply to them.

^* : I do not see how the hon. Member brings in the training of the Army under this Bill.

^* : I do so because under the item for military education we have all the various schools which train officers for their duty in the Army. There is, for instance, the Staff College. If you have a certain number of highly-trained officers who have received their training at the Staff College, and many of these officers are employed in the Intelligence Department, they are employed to do the mapping, a matter in which we were so terribly defective at the commencement of the present war.

^* : I see there is an item for military education, and the hon. Member is quite in order.

^* : I am very glad to find myself in order upon this point, because it is one which goes to the very bottom of our failure in South Africa. It is all the more important because, at the present moment, the Government are taking no steps to remedy that state of affairs which existed at the beginning of the war. The Yeomanry who went out at the commencement of the war were, for the most part, well trained. They knew how to ride, and understood horses, and they were commanded by officers many of whom were the finest horsemen in England. What has taken place since? Large numbers of them have been swept away. Many of them have been killed or wounded or invalided, and a large proportion of these officers have been withdrawn for other employment. We have since sent out some 15,000 men, who were raked up from every class of people throughout the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State for War boasted that he had succeeded in obtaining 15,000 of these men, and that he could obtain 15,000 more if necessary. I want to know why he did not obtain them, and why they are not now being trained under thoroughly competent officers at Aldershot. From the information we have received in regard to the war, we know that it cannot be brought to a successful conclusion for at least another three or four months. Some of us are confident that it will last another fifteen months. Why are not these men now being trained at Aldershot, so that five or six months hence, when we shall have to send out another body of mounted troops, they will be trained men who can ride and shoot, instead of the men we have recently sent out, who can do neither, and who are an incubus to the general in command of them. These men have not the right class of officers to lead them, for they are no longer in the country. There are a number of those officers who have been invalided home who are sufficiently well to undertake the duties of training men at home before they are despatched to South Africa. The men who have been recently sent out are of such a quality that they cannot be trained only by the very best officers, for the worse the recruit is the better the officer should be. I see opposite to me an hon. and gallant Member who commanded a distinguished cavalry regiment, and I am sure he will bear me out in what I am stating. Every country finds it very difficult to train a cavalry man in less than two or three years, and yet we send out men to fight the Boers, who are notoriously good horsemen, who have had no experience, but who, if they had had two or three years training, would be amply fit to take their place in the field. It is a monstrous thing that the money of the country should be squandered in this way. Steps should be taken at once to give instruction to all those mounted men who may be required to go out to South Africa in the future. The Government are still following the policy they have followed all through, and that is the policy of want of preparedness. At every stage we have been told that the war is over, but it is no more likely to be over than it was a few months ago. We ought to have an instructional school established at Aldershot to train these men, and we ought not to put ourselves to shame by sending out to South Africa men that the Boers openly boast they can walk round, snipe whenever they choose, get away from whenever they please, and whenever they are in want of ammunition or supplies they have nothing to do but fall upon one of these columns. Before the beginning of the war if anyone had stated that we should require 60,000 or 70,000 British cavalry or mounted troops, in addition to 200,000 infantry, to deal with the Boers, we should have been looked upon as only fit for a lunatic asylum. Had we had in South Africa at the outbreak of this war some 60,000 or 70,000 really efficient cavalry, that force could have swept South Africa from one end to the other. It is the duty of the Government to use every step in their power to see that these troops are rendered more effective, and the only way to do it is by sending out drafts of the right quality.

I agree with the remarks which have just fallen from my hon. friend in reference to the duty of the Government in being prepared not only to carry on the war effectively but, at the same time, to secure for those who are fighting the treatment which such men ought to receive. We are spending many millions of money on our transport arrangements, and more than once hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed gratification at the manner in which such a large force has been sent from this country to South Africa, and we have prided ourselves for a long time past on the efficiency of the transport service to and from South Africa. But I have heard from time to time grumblings from the men as to the way in which they have been treated sometimes on going out to South Africa, but more frequently on their way home from that country. I do not think it is wise, economical, or even loyal of the Government to allow any men who go out to South Africa as Yeomanry or Volunteers, or in any other capacity, to have grievances as to the manner in which they are brought home after serving their country through an arduous campaign. We must bear in mind that the experience of this war will sink deep into the minds of the people of this country, and if the men have reason to complain of their treatment in this respect they will not be so ready to come forward to fight the battles of the Empire in the future. I am especially anxious that everything shall be done to remedy these errors in order that this country shall not have the opprobrium of men refusing to fight for their country because they have been treated badly in connection with this war.

I desire especially to refer to the scandal—for it is a scandal—of the treatment of the Yeomanry who came home in the ship "Mongolian" the other day. The sufferings of the men are admitted, and the Admiralty has shown this by discharging the ship from transport duty in the future. The Admiralty could not have done anything less, but they might have done something more to prevent the suffering and the disgraceful conditions under which these men had to make their homeward passage. The Government had no right to send these men home under conditions which are unworthy of the Government, for it is not right and proper treatment for men who have served this country through an arduous campaign like that in South Africa. When the "Mongolian" sailed, from Cape Town she had many more men on board than she ought to have had. Those on board thought that a complement of 400 or 500 would have been a much better complement than the 700 or 800 who did come home with the ship. Apart from the question whether the ship was crowded or not, when it sailed from Cape Town it was in a filthy condition, overrun with vermin of various kinds. When the men got on board they wrote home describing the absolutely horrid conditions under which they were obliged to take their passage after enduring the hardships of the campaign for twelve months. The ship took thirty-two days to reach Southampton. That of itself is a condemnation of the arrangements made for bringing home brave men. They ought not to have been kept thirty-two days on the voyage. It is not creditable. I say it is bad economy and bad administration. We ought not to have slow ships engaged in this kind of work. We had a scandal in connection with the employment of slow ships when sending reinforcements for the front. We had two or three ships of that kind, which were insufficient for the service on account of the slowness of their progress. Here you have a ship taking thirty-two days on the voyage in bringing men home. During that voyage there were many incidents which were not creditable to the ship or to those who employed it In the first place there were several breaks-down of the machinery. When near the equator the boilers were so bad that the men might have been left for some days sweltering in an equatorial sun. There was nobody on board the ship capable of repairing the boilers, and it had to be done by two yeomen who volunteered for the service. Well, it is not fair that honourable men who have fought for their country should be subjected to conditions like these on the return journey. Many Members of this House had friends on board the ship, and they know that what I have stated is correct. It was through accident that the ship got home in thirty-two days after all. In addition to that, when they were engaged in this work on the Equator the amount of water on board was considered to be so much in danger of running out that during the daytime the men very often could not get water. The water supply was so short that some days the allowance to the men was stopped. That is not creditable to the people who had charge of the supplies of that ship. The ship managed, after she was repaired, to continue her journey. Before the accident happened, I believe, all the soda water ran out when the ship was four days away from Cape Town. That is a condition of affairs which should not occur in connection with a matter on which we are spending any amount of money. I voted for it myself over and over again and supported the Government. The money was voted cheerfully, but I did not expect that it would be used in this way. What was the state of affairs with reference to disease? believe the men who were taken on board the ship were examined medically before going on board at Cape Town, and if they were not they ought to have been. What happened in the course of the thirty-two days voyage? You had a case of typhoid fever developed every day. There were thirty-one cases before the ship reached Southampton. That is not a satisfactory condition of things on board a ship of this character. The ship was dirty when it started, and it was not properly supplied with the necessaries of life during the passage. No less than seven of these unfortunate men died on the passage—men who deserved honour for having served their country so well. One has certainly died since the men were landed, and possibly there may have been more deaths. As to the treatment of these men, what happened during the voyage? Some of the most important drugs necessary for the treatment of this disease ran out. Now, all these things ought to be inquired into, and I would call upon the Government to take such steps as shall prevent these conditions in future. This accident possibly arose from want of thought, as so many accidents do. I think it ought not. to have occurred if we had had proper inspection of that ship, and proper administration of it before leaving Cape Town. The fact is, I do not think the ship was fit for the service, and it ought not to have been used. She had been engaged on the Australian passage for some time, and if she was in the condition I have stated she ought not to have been used for bringing men home to England. She ought to have been sent home empty. It would have been much better for economical reasons. Under better conditions, the lives of the brave men who died might have been saved. I am anxious that steps should be taken to prevent these things in future, in order that the spirit of patriotism and loyalty which we have seen in this time of strain and stress should, not be broken. These things are remembered by the men, and they are talked of in the villages where they have their homes. We ought to be, above all things, anxious that the men. should be well treated.

I entirely agree with the statements of my hon. friend the Member fer Newington. I have a letter in my pocket from a brother officer who commanded a cavalry regiment in which I once had the honour to serve, and it states, with reference to the remounts, that the horses when put on board were in first-rate condition. The fact is that they were shamefully neglected on the passage to the Cape. Only one man was told off to attend to ten horses, and when they were landed they were in an absolutely weak and unfit condition. When they were put on the train not more than one man was told off to attend to 100 horses. They were sent on service at once, and the result was that the horses died like flies. The officer tells me that it is absolutely necessary to keep horses six months in the country before putting them to work. There is no wonder that these animals after the voyage died in heaps as they did. The Hungarian horses, I am informed, were absolutely useless and everything they should not be. I think it would be well if some inquiry was made as to the system under which these particular horses were purchased. I have heard some remarkable stories from a man who happens to be a consul in that part of the world. I cannot understand why the Government do not adopt the Austro-Hungarian system of horsing the cavalry. It is simple and not expensive, and there is no such cavalry in the world. The system is this. In 1866 the Emperor of Austria started remount depots. Mares are served at a nominal price on condition that the produce should be sold to the Government. They pay £28 for a cavalry horse, and £30 for an artillery horse. Some of the horses in our service at Aldershot at not more than three years old, and they are quite useless for the work. Others are more fit to be in a 'bus, being so old that they are no good at all. I cannot help thinking that the Government would do well if they adopted the Austro Hungarian system, and bought from the producer instead of from the middleman. I wonder why the Government cannot set on foot remount depots in Ireland. Ireland is the best country I know for horse breeding, but the Irish farmer is quite unable to give a proper price for a sire, and the result is that the horse is not good enough. The policy at present is to give a high price for the stock, and to allow the middleman to get all the profit. Two friends of mine, Army officers who had horses to dispose of, recently wrote to the War Office patriotically offering them at a particular price. To one the reply was sent that his offer was made too early in the year, and the other was told that he had made his offer too late in the year.

Will my hon. and gallant friend give me the particulars of these cases?

Certainly, I will be delighted to give the right hon. Gentleman the names of the officers, their regiments, and all about them, for I have it all in black and white in my locker in this House. I daresay the War Office has learned by experience. At any rate, I hope they will see whether they cannot support the producer instead of the middleman, and start such depots as I have endeavoured to describe to the House.

^* : The hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down is one of the few Conservatives who have given the House any remarks at all about questions of army administration. He has given us a notable case of the reluctance of the War Office to accept remounts for the troops, which events have proved to be so exceedingly needful. With regard to that subject the Financial Secretary assured us that the question of the purchase of remounts would be carefully inquired into. The question of the Hungarian horses has been brought prominently to the front, and we should be glad if some statement could be made to us in the course of this debate on that question. We are satisfied with the statement of the Financial Secretary that inquiry is being made, and we want to know, particularly on this side of the House, how far it has gone up to the present moment. It is an unusual thing for the Consolidated Fund Bill to be introduced at this period of the session. Generally one is introduced early in March and another in August, but for some unexplained reason this Bill has been sprung upon the House with an air of mystery. It was not until this debate was actually beginning that private Members were in a position to know what the points covered by the Bill were, and what they were at liberty, and not at liberty, to debate. That led to this inconvenience. Two or three hours were taken up on Tuesday afternoon by private Members in trying to discover what they were at liberty to discuss in this House. If the same frankness had been observed on Tuesday, when the Bill was introduced for First Reading, that was observed when the Papers were put at our disposal this afternoon, the whole of that discussion might easily have been avoided. That being the case, I think it is well to point out that this debate is not confined to the questions of remounts and transports. There are a great many subjects covered by the thirty-four Votes, and all are open for discussion. I think we have reasonable cause of complaint against the Treasury, or whoever is responsible for the production of this Bill, at this period of the session.

I wish to raise a small point in connection with military education, to which attention was drawn by the hon. Member for Newington. I ventured to point out to the House in a former debate that there was some reason to believe that arguments were being addressed to the Secretary of State with the view of belittling the matter of military education. In the letters which have recently appeared in The Times on this point it has been pointed out that the generals who have served in South Africa during the war, and who have not had the advantage of a staff college training, have been more successful than those who have. Let it be granted that they have. What weight does that carry with it? It does not prove that these generals, if they had had a Staff College training, would not have done better than they have done without it. Their education must be all the better from knowing the conduct of the professors of military art in previous ages in circumstances in which they found themselves at any given moment. There is this objectionable feature about military education in the Army. I know from my own case that the moment an officer enters a regiment his military education ceases at once, and all those things with which lie has been diligently crammed before entering the service are put on one side. He is not taught, as his confrere in the naval service is taught, that he must, so long as he retains the rank of officer, go to school in order to obtain promotion and make himself more acceptable in the Army. While the naval officer under a system of continuous training has become the most skilful naval officer in the world, and while he has gained skill without losing dash and bravery, the Army of England is looked upon by the great military authorities abroad as the most inadequate, the most cumbrous, useless, and expensive fighting machine in the world. [A laugh.] An hon. Member laughs at that, but the methods which are employed by the British Army are the laughing stock of any capable military officer in Germany or France. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman denies that, but it is a fact. What is true of the officer is equally true, to a large extent, of the non-commissioned officer. Both in France and Germany regular schools are provided for the instruction of non-commissioned officers. There are no regular classes for non-commissioned officers in England, and I would ask the Secretary of State whether it is not worth his while to turn his attention to those large permanent schools abroad, with the view to establishing somewhat similar schools for non-commissioned officers.

There is one more point on which wish to touch, and that is the deficiency of the allowance in regard to languages. At present £550 is the most the War Office spends. Of the £30,000,000 we spend on the Regular Service, that is the total sum awarded for efficiency in languages to officers and non-commissioned officers. I know that unless the commander of an army gets accurate information as to the movements of the enemy against which he is proceeding it is impossible to provide against surprises and to avoid mistakes. That information is necessary to bring the campaign to a successful issue. He cannot get that unless a proportion of the men in every regiment are familiar more or less with the language of the country in which they are campaigning. What inducements do you offer to officers or non commissioned officers to become efficient in foreign languages?

I promised to look into the subject.

^* : I am exceedingly glad to hear it. The Financial Secretary to the War Office, when speaking on this subject, said he thought the present allowance was adequate for all purposes. What I complain of is that larger sums are not given. That is the whole gist of my complaint. Everybody who has studied the Russian language for any period at all knows that he cannot possibly learn it unless he resides a considerable time in the country. I learned to read Russian, but when I endeavoured to converse with a Russian in his own language he had not the faintest idea of what I was talking about. It might be my stupidity, but I think it must be quite clear that in order to converse in a foreign language one must learn the pronunciation, and to learn that one must reside in the country. The sums given by the Secretary for War do not promote the acquisition of languages in any adequate degree whatever. I wish to call attention to a point in connection with the engineer service. You are spending on this the sum of £3,281,000. A great deal of that is to be spent abroad. Some of it is to be spent on fortifications, and a great deal on barrack repairs and the building of quarters for officers. We have copied Germany in a good many things, but this is one service in which we have not copied them in any way whatever. They divide the Engineer service into two parts, and they devote one to the construction of fortresses and do not allow them to be employed on any other work. For barrack accommodation for the troops and officers they have a separate Department altogether. The whole of the work done on barracks is done by civilian labourers who may be ex-soldiers. Anyone who has been unfortunate enough to live in huts constructed by the Royal Engineers knows how exceedingly unsuited most of these are. In my own county some huts have recently been constructed for the accommodation of the troops, and I believe the difficulty the Royal Engineers experienced was to construct the huts so as to keep out the snow in winter, and at the same time not to make them too hot in summer. I should have thought that was a problem very easy to solve by any local builder or contractor, but I am told the difficulty was so great that the huts the Royal Engineers erected not only let in the snow in winter but retain the heat in summer. I would suggest that before this Vote comes on next year the right hon. the Secretary for War would see his way to separate the Royal Engineers officers detailed for the construction of forts and those for the erection of buildings, which are not necessarily of a military character.

Perhaps I may be allowed to answer a few of the questions which have been put by various hon. Members. First of all, I shall deal with the question raised by the hon. Member for East Bristol in regard to military education. As he is perhaps aware, there is a Committee sitting at present dealing with the whole question.

Surely, but that is a Committee on the preliminary education of officers before they enter the Army.

Yes; but I hope the Committee will be able to give us some principles on which to act with regard to the education of officers after they enter the Army, as well as before. The hon. Gentleman wished that there were larger awards for proficiency in languages. That I am in sympathy with. One of the best things that could be done would be to get our officers to go in more than they do at present for proficiency in foreign languages; at the same time, I do not know that the proportion of our officers who know foreign languages is much less than those in foreign armies. But every officer who knows a foreign language is something gained to the Army; and I know that my right hon. friend the Secretary for War will do all he can to help forward the movement. The question as to the officers in the Royal Engineers is difficult, and not altogether fit to be gone into on the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill; but my right hon. friend has had his attention drawn to the matter, and I myself have some sympathy with the hon. Member for East Bristol when he says that the two branches of the Royal Engineers should be kept separate and worked on different lines. My right hon. friend was not waiting for the suggestion of the hon. Member, but has already taken steps to have the matter inquired into, so that this, which is one of the greatest spending departments of the War Office, may be put on a better basis than in he past.

As to remounts, we are at the present moment buying them exclusively from the colonies, including Canada, from the United States, and from the United Kingdom. We are not now buying any remounts either in Austria or South America. At the same time, I would not like to bind myself that we should not buy in these two countries, although we should do so with reluctance, and only after we had failed to obtain the horses we require from the other countries I have named. The hon. and gallant Member for Newington asked why we did not buy horses at Glasgow and Liverpool. I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Member will accept my explanation, but, at all events, it is the true one. We did send down a representative to have a look at these horses. In these two cities the authorities have, during the past two years, been preparing to substitute for horse haulage electric traction on their tramways, and the consequence is that they have not replenished their stock of horses at all, and those left, spoken of as being in fine condition, were not in a condition to do the work we wanted in South Africa. In other words, they were practically worn out, and that is the reason we did not purchase horses in Glasgow and Liverpool. In regard to the question raised by the hon. Baronet the Member for Dulwich as to corruption on the part of those who were purchasing horses for us in Austria, and how far the inquiry into the matter had gone, I cannot tell the House much. But this much I will say, that the hon. Baronet told me that he had got a certain number of letters, and that he was procuring supplementary evidence to give me along with them. He gave me two letters, in one of which an accusation was made indefinitely. When the writer was asked to give further information he distinctly declined to do so, and said that he was not going to take any public action in the matter. Therefore we are rather hampered in one inquiry. In the other case a gentleman wrote making a direct charge against an officer. We wrote to him and asked whether he was ready to substantiate that accusation, but he has not answered our letter. The hon. Baronet will see that there is a slight difficulty in probing the matter to the bottom. If we can do so we will, and if it turns out that the writer will come forward to substantiate the charge, we shall take care that the officer is given every opportunity and every chance to prove his innocence. That is the most I can say. Then my hon. friend the Member for Essex said he would like to see the Hungarian principle brought into play in England with regard to remounts. To a certain extent I was ready to agree with him until a few months ago, but I have made certain inquiries, and I am bound to say that the evidence supplied to me does not go far to convince me that such an arrangement would be a success. The only way you could possibly do it would be by coming to some arrangement with the breeder that the produce should be sold to the Government at a fixed price. If that could be done there might be a good deal in it. I am, however, afraid, from what I hear from breeding establishments and dealers, that there would be great difficulty in getting them to consent to such an arrangement. However, it is not outside the present consideration of the War Office, as the terms of reference to the Committee now sitting dealing with the question of the purchase of remounts are, first, what is the number of horses required on an average for the service in an ordinary year; second, how many can be obtained in the United Kingdom; third, whether arrangements would be possible to secure a certain number of horses annually from the colonies; fourth, whether it is desirable to establish remount depots in the various new districts; and, lastly, whether the present system of registration should be extended. I hope the result of this Committee will be to bring forward some definite proposals which will place the remount department in a position which will meet the wishes of Members on both sides of the House. The hon. Member for Newington spoke of not having mounted men in training at the present moment, but he is wrong in his figures. We have over 11,000 cavalry and 8,000 mounted infantry now in training in the United Kingdom. I cannot agree with the remarks as to the new Yeomanry, for I have evidence from officers who have just returned very highly in favour of the Yeomanry sent out in the last levy. I hope the House will not listen to only one side of the question. I have had private letters from friends of mine, the tenor of which is directly opposite from that of the letter read by the hon. Gentleman opposite.

With regard to transport, the House knows that transports are taken up by the Admiralty and not by the War Office. As to the "Mongolian," the whole matter has been referred to the Admiralty. The "Mongolian" was taken up in a hurry in order to send the troops home as quickly as possible. When the report came in it was found that a great many of the accusations that the hon. Member now makes in the House were made by those on board; but the whole matter has been referred to the Admiralty, which has not only struck off that ship from the list of transports, but has instituted a searching inquiry into the whole circumstances of the case. I hope the House will understand that every possible care has been taken, and will be taken, to prevent a recurrence of what was complained of, and that the Admiralty will deal severely with any case that they can possibly bring under their jurisdiction. I do not know that there are any other questions to be answered. The whole of the remount question has been threshed out several times, and will be again. I hope that we are now getting a class of horses that will suit the requirements of mounted men in South Africa. We are endeavouring to get in advance of the demand, so as to give these horses a rest on their arrival in South Africa; but I must say that the reports I have of the horses are infinitely more satisfactory than at one time we were accustomed to hear in South Africa. Of course, there is not the slightest doubt that, if the whole thing had to be done over again, we would do some things differently. At the same time, there are some things which nothing but the war could have revealed, and everything that can be done to profit by the lessons of the war will be done.

said he considered the question as to the bribery of officers was one for strict investigation, and, of course, nobody would believe that any officer had been, bribed until it had been distinctly proved. He wished to call the attention to the reckless manner in which the Government wasted money in every sort of way. He would only allude on the present occasion to the purchase of horses in Hungary. He had received a copy of a Hungarian paper in which an article appeared, contributed by a gentleman largely connected with horse breeding and sporting matters in Hungary. That article gave a pretty clear explanation of what had been done by the Government. It was written in no-angry spirit against the English Government; on the contrary, it said that there was no evidence, so far as the Hungarians knew, of bribery on the part of the officers employed to purchase horses, but that there had been the most reckless waste and folly on the part of the representatives of the War Office. According to this article, it appeared that the Government entered into an arrangement with a certain Leopold Hauser to deliver horses at a certain place called Zabadka. The contract was for 15,000 horses, the price being 750 krone per horse. This Leopold Hauser, it was stated, swept the whole country of the most wretched horses which he could possibly find, and a great majority of them he bought at from 150 to 200 krone.

Will the hon. Member give the House the date of this transaction?

said he could only repeat what was in the Hungarian newspaper which had been sent to him.

Was the contract made by the War Office or by the Imperial Yeomanry Committee?

said he could not say. This newspaper alleged that many horse breeders and dealers in Hungary were very anxious to be brought into contact with the British agents. They would have been able to point out to the British agents the mistake they were making in taking the horses from Leopold Hauser, but they could not get a hearing. The result was that the registered Govern- ment agents had to choose the best of the lot of 15,000 horses, but bad were the best they were thoroughly poor, wretched horses that nobody would have dreamt of exporting from the country. It was stated in this article that Hauser made 3,000,000 krone, or about £120,000 profit from the transaction. The right hon. Gentleman had asked him whether this case referred to the direct agents of the War Office or to the agents sent out by the Imperial Yeomanry Committee. He did not know; it was not stated in the article; but he would point out to the right hon. Gentleman, and also to the noble Lord, who rather defended the case on the ground that the War Office was not responsible for what had been done by the Imperial Yeomanry Committee, that the country had to pay this money. The 3,000,000 krone which Leopold Hauser put in his pocket for 15,000 worthless horses came out of the pockets of the British taxpayers. He never heard that the War Office was not responsible for what had been done by the Imperial Yeomanry Committee. Was he to understand that when the Committee were told to buy 15,000 horses they were to do precisely what they liked, to make contracts with any man they liked, and to pay for the horses more than double their value? He denied that proposition altogether. He asked the right hon. Gentleman at the head the War Office to make some sort of investigation, not whether the officers had been bribed—he did not suppose they were—but in order to discover by whom this bargain had been made. Was the military attaché in Vienna consulted? He should say that the attaché ought to have been asked first of all whether this Leopold Hauser was a respectable man, and whether it was desirable to place the whole arrangement for the purchase of 15,000 in his hands. He further wanted to know what led to this Leopold Hauser being employed, and who made the contract. Was it made by the agents sent out by the Imperial Yeomanry Committee or by the agents of the War Office after consultation with the military attaché? The Hungarian newspapers complained that the reputation of Hungarian horses was suffering in consequence of what had been done by the British Government. He did not like the idea of paying twice their value for all the rotten screws, in Hungary, and he was only sorry that the Hungarians had not come here and taken away all the screws from Glasgow, Liverpool, and elsewhere.

^* said that this subject had been brought prominently before the House in consequence of some remarks he had made a few days ago. It was said that he accused officers of taking bribes, of purchasing horses knowing that at the time that these horses were of no use. They all knew that it was considered honest by some people to buy horses at £20 which were only worth £10, and he had asked the question, Who gave this, man Hauser instructions to buy these horses? The noble Lord the Financial Secretary to the War Office had kindly said that inquiries were to be made into the matter, and he hoped that the inquiry would be thorough. He should have been glad to have seen a Committee appointed which could have traced the cheques that were paid for the horses, In the letters which he had handed to the noble Lord there were persons directly charged by name, and he did not understand why these persons had not been called upon to substantiate their accusations.

The hon. Baronet gave me two letters in which accusations were made. Both the writers were communicated with. The writer of the first declined to have anything to do with the matter, and said that the hon. Baronet had no right whatever to show a private letter. The other writer has not replied in any way whatever to the letters which were written to him.

^* : Was not one letter from an officer receiving His Majesty's pension, and did he not reply?

^* : Yes, he did reply, saying he would give us no assistance. He is not in receipt of a pension.

^* said that this was a very serious question. Within the last quarter of an hour he had received a telegram from his agent in Austria, who was trying out there to help the Government to sift this matter. He did not wish to have an officer falsely charged, and for the sake of that officer he would be only too delighted if the charge was found to be untrue.

^* : I really must ask the House to allow me to make an explanation. The hon. Baronet talks about his agent helping the Government. The hon. Baronet told me that he had certain letters which he would give me. I have written to him and spoken to him asking him to give me these letters. He told me the other day that he had people making inquiries so as to enable him to give me the letters in full. I do not think that that can be called helping the Government to make an inquiry. Let the hon. Baronet lay the letters before us without any inquiry on his part, and I will undertake to make a full inquiry.

^* said that he showed the letters to the noble Lord, which were in German. He had given the best translation possible of the letters at the time made by a horse dealer who had come over from BudaPesth, who was thoroughly cognisant of all the details. He asked the noble Lord if he wanted the letters, and the reply was, "No, take them back." He offered to supply a full translation of the letters, and, finding that the letters were not accepted in the way he wished, he sent over to Austria two people fully qualified to make enquiries, and he had just received a telegram from one of these agents. He had no wish to hide any of the details of the information he had received, and he was trying to assist the Government.

I am making no accusation. I only wish the House to understand that the hon. Member said he was going to submit the letters he had received after he had made fuller inquiry. At the same time that the hon. Baronet's inquiry is going on the Government inquiry is proceeding.

^* said he was willing to help the Government in every way, and anything brought before him he would be glad to let them have. It was, in his opinion, a most extra- ordinary thing that horses of the very worst class were sent to South Africa in their thousands, and were charged to the Government at a very high price indeed, double what they were worth. That was a question which ought to be sifted to the bottom, and he did not think that he ought to be attacked in the manner in which he had been for the letters which he had sent out in order that the matter should be investigated on the spot. He had been perfectly straightforward in the matter in every way. He hoped in a few weeks he would receive the information for which he had written, and he hoped, for the sake of the Government, that it would show that the people who made all this money out of these horses made it out of ignorant buyers, who did not know what they were doing. He would like to hear from the Government who these persons were to whom the Government gave these contracts to buy horses. Were they given to persons who were known and could be relied on, or were they given to Jews whom nobody knew anything about? Why could not Englishmen have been entrusted to buy horses for the Government? They had heard of one man who had made £40,000 or £50,000 by assisting the Government to find these horses, and he should do his best to unravel that question. He believed the war had been prolonged by the class of horses which had been sent out to South Africa, and that was a serious matter. No information had been given to him by the Department to assist him, but information had come from people of very high position in Hungary, and he had received a letter which he had shown to the noble Lords to the effect that the Hungarian Government was prepared to let us have 10,000 of their picked horses; yet their offer was refused, and they were told the horses were not required, and a contract was given to somebody else, and, as a consequence, most inferior horses were sent to the front.

said that, having had special experience through a long service in the Yeomanry, he desired to say a few words upon this subject. He was glad to hear that a somewhat better state of things was now in force than in the opening months of the war. Most certainly the gravest dissatisfaction was felt among many people in this country at the manner in which this question of remounts had been dealt with, and at the high prices given for horses not fit for the purposes of the Yeomanry. He desired, however, to call attention to one particular point. At our hands there was an excellent supply of horses in the quarter in which the Government should encourage the production of horses. He was in camp last year with the Cheshire Yeomanry and the Lancashire Hussars, and in the regiment with which he was there were 600 horses of the very best kind. From the squadron with which he was particularly engaged he could have selected without difficulty 100 of the very type of horse which was required, and yet during the whole of the time no officer commissioned for the purchase of horses came near; in fact, such was the state of things at that time that in his district it was notorious that no farmer need apply. The experience of officers at the front who had written to him upon the subject had been that there were no horses for this work that could be compared with the English hunter; that they lasted better and stood fatigue to which other horses succumbed. It was an anomaly and an absurdity that, when the Government and everybody connected with the land was desirous of encouraging the breeding of horses, the farmers of this country should have been so strangely neglected in this matter. He was glad some improvement had now taken place, and that the farmers were now dealing directly and honestly with the buyers of the Government. With regard to some of the appointments made, it was a great mistake that some information was not sought from the Members representing country districts as to the status and character of the persons employed to buy in the country; the Government would have been much better served had that been done. There was only one observation he desired to make, and that was rather in the nature of a question. With regard to the 11,000 cavalry stated to be in the country at the present moment, he would like to know whether that statement applied to horses as well as men, because it was a matter of common knowledge that many of the provi- sional regiments at home consisted of a considerable number of recruits, and one depot with which he was acquainted had 600 men and only had 100 old horses to practice on. He would like to know, therefore, whether that estimate of 11,000 cavalry represented men and horses or only men.

^* said, having had experience of the horses sent to South Africa, he desired to prevent the House from concluding that all the Hungarian horses were useless, or even moderate. In the squadron which he had the honour to command in South Africa there were a good many Hungarian horses, and another squadron which was for some time under his command was mounted entirely on Hungarian horses. They were among the hardiest horses sent to South Africa. There were certainly some bad ones among the Hungarian horses shipped to Beira, many of which suffered in the voyage, but it was within the knowledge of the officers that the Hungarian horses put on condition a great deal more quickly than the Texians, and though they were apparently unbroken, and difficult to break in on account of having very bad mouths, they were, as he had said, when broken, much hardier than the Texians. They went through much work with the Sixtieth Imperial Yeomanry.

said he felt that Members from Ireland must impress upon the Government the necessity of buying horses for the Army in Ireland. He had put this question before the House on several occasions, because he believed that the horses of Ireland were better than horses obtained from any other part of the world. No doubt Irish horses cost a little more, but at the same time the noble Lord had admitted that they were superior for war purposes to horses supplied from any other source. There was not the slightest necessity for going outside the British Isles to buy horses. French and Belgian buyers came to Ireland to buy every week, yet the Government bought Austro-Hungarian horses, which were not so good; in fact, a good donkey would have been of more use in South Africa than some of the horses which were sent out. He believed all the Irish Members were united on one point— that as many horses as possible should be purchased in Ireland. Such a practice would benefit not only the farmer but the Government, and it would greatly encourage the breeding of horses. The time had come when the Government should put themselves into communication with the farmers and inspect the horses on the farms.

said the House was asked to vote nearly £16,000,000 for transport and remounts. He did not know what amount was allocated to each item, and he would be glad to hear how much was for horses and how much was for ships. Last year he raised the question of providing motor-cars instead of these remounts, but his proposal was treated with something like derision. He drew attention to the fact that this question was engaging the attention of foreign nations, and submitted that this country should be not behind, but rather ahead, of other nations in this matter. He had had practical experience in motor-cars, and urged that experiments in this direction should be made. Motor-cars had not been gauged with regard to their uses in this direction. A motor-car could be built for £80 or £90 to draw artillery, and the man who drove it would not be liable to be shot down, because he would be protected by a bullet-proof shield, and the gun he drew would be a defence for him. Some of the guns taken by the enemy were taken because the horses and men were shot down, there being no shelter from the bullets of expert marksmen. If at Spion Kop we had had motor-car machines instead of horses, we could have hauled the guns up and retained the position. He would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to spend some of this money in motor-cars, that we might be ahead of other nations, so that if a war took place we might not find ourselves behind our enemies. With regard to the purchase of horses, it would be encouraging to the House to know that the noble Lord was sitting upon a Committee where the buying and breeding of horses was being considered. He, however, did not agree with the noble Lord that there was a difficulty in the way of providing stallions for the use of farmers; there was no difficulty at all. He most strongly urged that the Government should buy direct from the farmer. These new districts which are being instituted should be so organised as to have men to select the horses and to buy them from the farmers. In his division there was a market, and he would guarantee that if the farmers among his constituents knew that a certain price would be paid for horses, there would be a good supply, the farmers would get the full benefit of the money, and the class of horses in the Army would be better. The horses, which are bought from dealers are frequently imported from America; they are not in hard condition; they are very ill after the voyage, and are absolutely unfit to be sent on another voyage and then taken at once to the front. Moreover, the horses frequently have diseases, such as strangles, which render them unfit for hard work. The result is that our men are exposed to dangers from which they would be exempt if they had better horses to carry them. With regard to breeding, if the Government provided stallions suitable for the purpose required, expressed their readiness to pay a fair price for the offspring, and at the end of three years took the horses in fairly hard condition, he said that in time we should have in the Army horses, ranging from four to ten years of age, which would be strong, healthy, hard, and reliable, and we should not have to buy at the eleventh hour unsuitable animals, which endanger the lives of our men. Aspersions had been cast upon those who had purchased the horses. Whether those aspersions were merited or not was not a question to go into now, but he thought that for purity of administration it would be infinitely better that the Department should take charge of these purchases in the way that he had suggested, as then such accusations would be impossible. If the suggestions he had made were carried out, if the Government kept their eyes open and lived up to the times, if they utilised motor-cars and obtained good horses, he considered that this money for the purchase of remounts would be well spent.

^* : I wish to direct the attention of the House to the Vote for sea transport, the amount of which is so enormous, and which to me is perfectly incomprehensible. When we were in Committee this Vote was criticised, but the criticisms were confined almost entirely to two points. One of those points was that the Secretary of State for War had given no details, but simply asked for a lump sum, and the other was the question of demurrage. On the latter point I think the right hon. Gentleman promised us a Return, because it is an interesting question, and has a great bearing on the Estimate, but that Return has not yet been supplied. The greater part of the very large amount voted for sea-transport has been paid for non-effective service, either in the form of demurrage or for the hire of steamers not in active employment. Still, I do not ask the right hon. Gentleman for full details, because I know it is impossible to give them. But really, this enormous sum of £9,500,000 seems to me to be a mere guess, and a rather wild guess at that. I cannot see now it is possible to spend the money. The right hon. Gentleman told us that he was in hopes that during the next year he would have to bring home a large proportion of the troops now engaged on active service in South Africa. But even then I do not see how he could spend this money, or anything like the amount. The fact is the House is asked to give a blank cheque; it is nothing less than that. Everybody will admit that it is inadvisable that there should be a Vote in which there are certain to be large unexpended balances to be transferred, with the consent of the Treasury, to objects which have not been sanctioned by the House. We can judge of the sufficiency of this Vote only by the experience of the past. We have spent on sea transport in connection with the war about £6,000,000 in the year ending March 1900, and, according to the Estimates, about £10,500,000 for the year just ended. With this sum we have sent out to South Africa 300,000 men and 260,000 animals. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that a typical transport will carry about three times as many men as animals—1,250 men, as against 400 horses. Therefore, we may say that one horse will equal three men, so far as accommodation is concerned. At this rate we have trans- ported to South Africa the equivalent of more than 1,000,000 men. And these transports have been taken dearly too. They were taken up at very high rates. I am not blaming the Department which has charge of the transports for that. I think that on the whole the chartering was done extremely well. Nevertheless, rates of 35s. or 40s. per ton per month were paid in certain cases for these transports, and enormous expenditure has been incurred for demurrage, or for the hire of transports which were not in active employment. As I say, I am not blaming the Government for that, and it is not likely to occur again. There will not be the pressure either of time or of money. The rates are now lower, and there should be no demurrage, or scarcely any, incurred in the future, and probably there will not be. It is admitted by the right hon. Gentleman that there will be few, if any, horses to bring back to this country. It will be much better to dispose in South Africa of all the horses which remain after active operations cease. Therefore, it is simply a question taking the most sanguine view, of bringing home the army now engaged in military operations. What should it cost to transport 250,000 men from South Africa to England? We have, I suppose, forty-five transports still engaged, and the cost of those transports, we have been told by the right hon. Gentleman, is about £5,000 a month. If those ships make only three trips in the year they could bring the whole army back, and, of course, that would be an absurdly slow rate of transport. If you were to employ these transports for the whole year the cost would not be more than £3,000,000 for hire, the only additional element being the price of bunker coal and certain other minor expenses. Therefore, I confess that I am perfectly at a loss to understand by what calculation the right hon. Gentleman has arrived at this enormous sum. It was proposed in Committee that the Vote should be reduced by £1,000,000. I would have supported a motion to reduce the sum by one-half, and even then I think the Vote would have been much greater than it would be possible for the Administration to spend upon sea transport. This amount would bring home the whole army at present engaged in war-like operations in South Africa as first-class passengers on mail steamers; you could give every man a first class ticket home on the Union Castle Line. I should, therefore, like the right hon. Gentleman to state upon what data he based his estimate of this very large sum.

said that in Committee he had attempted to call attention to much the same facts as those referred to by the hon. Member who had just spoken. Last year the amount for transport was £10,000,000, and 300,000 men and 260,000 animals were sent out with it. The present Estimate was £9,550,000, which, allowing for the reduction in freights, was practically the same as last year. How was this money to be spent? How had the total been arrived at? What did the odd £50,000 represent? The House had a right to know what was to be done with this money, as absolutely no explanation had yet been given. The Government were asking, as had already been said, for a blank cheque, to be spent on purposes of which the House knew nothing, entirely at the will of the Treasury and the War Office.

said he was glad to hear the hon. Member for South Monaghan advocating the claims of Irish horses, and he felt sure the Government would give due consideration to the matter. The hon. Member had suggested that the best Irish horses should be sent out to South Africa, and he was to be congratulated upon his patriotic suggestion, as doubtless they would form very efficient material for bringing the war to a conclusion. He did not suppose the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, or the Financial Secretary required any inducement to cause them to look with favour on the purchase of horses at home; they would doubtless heartily share with the hon. Member opposite the desire to assist the Irish farmers in this direction.

I hope the noble Lord will take into consideration not only the question of where he is going to buy his horses in future, but also the method by which they are going to be bought. The methods by which the War Office have bought the horses has been wasteful and extravagant in the extreme. I was not, however, aware of the enormity of the practice until I went down to my constituency the other day and saw what had happened in Devonshire. I was told that the War Office had employed horse dealers to supply them with horses, and that the farmers— the actual breeders of the horses— had not the chance or opportunity of even seeing the Government buyer. That, of course, is a system which must induce extravagance, because we know perfectly well what horse dealers do with horses. I was told by a friend of mine, upon whose reliability I can depend, that he went into one horse dealer's establishment at Exeter and saw there horses bandaged— some with wet bandages on them, and some with a pipe over their shoulders squirting water on a splint. He said to one of the employees, "Holloa, is your master setting up a veterinary establishment?" "Oh, no," was the reply, "we are preparing for the Government buyer, who is coming down to-morrow."

If the hon. Member will give me the name of the dealer I will undertake that the Government buyer shall not go there again.

I will certainly give the noble Lord the name in a few moments; I do not wish to bring it out in public, and I hope the noble Lord will act on it.

I certainly will.

That is really my reason for mentioning the matter in this debate. It is well known that horse dealers fake up horses in this way, and unless the horses are tried very severely one cannot detect for a few days whether they are sound or not. In Devonshire horses have been so bad that they could hardly gallop a mile with a pair of jack boots on their backs, much less a rider. But what I complain of is that the Government should go to horse dealers at all. Really one would imagine that the horse dealers had been inciting the War Office to carry out these methods. It is a well known fact in my part of the country that horse dealers have made enormous sums out of the buying and selling of these horses. More than one gentleman has said, "If we could only have this war every two or three years what a splendid thing it would be for us." The Government ought to advertise in the local papers to get the farmers to bring their horses to a certain centre instead of going to the dealers. The dealers sweep the country of all the low-class horses, because naturally they can get a bigger profit for these horses than for good sound horses. If a dealer is able to buy a horse at £20 and sell it at £40 he naturally makes a very much higher profit than if he buys a sound horse worth nearly the Government regulation price. I am perfectly certain that the right hon. Gentleman desires to get the best horses at the cheapest price, and I hope that in future he will advertise locally, so that the farmers and those who have horses to sell may bring the animals to certain centres. You do not want the dealer in the matter at all. I do not quite agree with the suggestion that the Government should establish stud farms for the improvement of horses. I do not think it would answer. What, however, I would press the Secretary of State for War to do, if he possibly can, is to take steps to secure that farmers shall put their mares to sound horses. That is one of the great difficulties in country districts. It is an unfortunate fact that farmers, to save £1 or 30s., will put their mares to almost anything.

There is another point which I think deserves a little more attention than the Financial Secretary has given it, namely, the charges made by the hon. Baronet the Member for Dulwich in the last debate. Those charges were very serious indeed. I have the report with me. The hon. Baronet said that certain officers in His Majesty's service were mixed up in this swindle. For my part, I do not think there are a cleaner-handed body of men than His Majesty's officers. I am not going to judge of their military capacity, but I do say they are English gentlemen, and the preponderating majority of them would not accept a bribe. Yet this slur is resting upon them now, and I sincerely hope the right hon. Gentleman will take steps at once to clear them from this odious and abhor- rent charge. I wish to emphasise the importance of the right hon. Gentleman getting the best horses for South Africa. I had a conversation recently with a man. who is now one of His Majesty's subjects, having taken the oath of allegiance, but who fought against us in the Orange Free State, and he told me that the Boer idea was to shoot as many horses as they could, because they regard the horse as their greatest enemy. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman, when he sends further horses out to South Africa will send the best horses; I am certain they will be cheaper in the end. The right hon. Gentleman says the Yeomanry last sent out have been highly satisfactory. I take his word for it, but for my part I think men brought up in the country districts, and who understand the management of horses, will do far better than some of those who have been sent out.

There is one other point to which I wish to direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. In some parts of Cape Colony horses have been requisitioned under martial law. I am informed that those horses will not be paid for until the end of the war. I cannot imagine that that is a good system, because if you buy a horse at a fair price you ought not to delay the payment until the end of the war. I sincerely hope that the Secretary of State for War will make adequate preparation for sending out such reinforcements as will bring this war to a close as soon as possible.

In discussing this question of remounts hon. Members have given the Government a good deal of advice as how to secure the best horses in the country. I would rather appeal to the House to allow this discussion to come to a close, because, after all, the House of Commons has a number of very important subjects to discuss, and nothing more that can be said will bring further home to the Government the desirability of buying horses of the best quality. Many hon. Members seem to think that the best quality of horses are to be found only in their own constituencies. The Government are prepared to avail themselves of as many suitable horses as can be obtained, not only in Ireland, but also in South and other parts of England.

As regards the actual criticisms made upon the policy of the Government, the hon. Member who has just sat down has referred again to the controversy which was raised by the hon. Member for Dulwich, who I am sorry is not now in his place. I want to refer to that question as briefly as possible. I would point out that this touches two subjects, which are quite distinct the one from the other. The first is the general question of the character of the horses bought for the Government in Hungary, and I am not in the least inclined to paliate any mistakes that have been made, or to let off those who have made them; but I think the picture of the quality of the horses drawn by the hon. Member for Dulwich was greatly exaggerated. The hon. Baronet gave a number of very vague statements as to the deplorable quality of those horses, and he stated that owing to the inferiority of these horses the lives of thousands of British soldiers have been lost. I regard that statement as due to the exuberance of oratory and employed without consideration at the spur of the moment. There certainly is no foundation for it whatever in fact. My hon. friend the Member for Halifax—who has been on the spot in South Africa, and who has served with a variety of regiments and squadrons—says that, although some of the horses were bad, the general quality was good. That is the opinion of my hon. friend who has been on the spot, and the Member for Dulwich has not been there. So far I do not think that we need assume that there was any general failure in regard to the particular class of horses selected. The hon. Baronet the Member for Dulwich made a specific statement on the last occasion with regard to the libelling of British officers. I think the Member for Dulwich had a verbal conversation in a friendly way with my noble friend the Financial Secretary to the War Office, but the hon. Baronet, I think, has made a mistake. He does not seem to have quite gauged the difference between these allegations and the evidence placed at the disposal of the War Office. In the first place, the hon. Baronet was not prepared to support his allegations with any real evidence upon which the War Office could take action. The War Office regard themselves as the guardians and trustees of the honour of the officers of the Army, and in that capacity they will, of course, sift as tho- roughly as it could be sifted any charge supported by evidence which is brought under their notice. If the hon. Baronet the Member for Dulwich will only induce his informants to give further information with respect to the officer said to have been bribed, and when and where it occurred, the War Office will not lose a day in taking action. But they cannot go to an officer and say, "An anonymous correspondent, whose name cannot be given, states that on some occasion, which he cannot specify, and from some person whom he does not know, you received a bribe." The War Office cannot take up charges of that kind, and I think it is only right that I ought to state this to the House. No doubt there has been the greatest possible temptation in regard to purchasing horses, for there has been amongst all sorts and conditions of men always a desire to buy in the cheapest markets and sell in the dearest. In such matters as these we can only rely on the honour of the officers we employ, but if there is any shadow of suspicion or proof of bribery in connection with this question, I assure the House that the War Office will not be backward in getting to the bottom of it.

So many things have been thrown at the War Office in this respect that I should like to give one instance of the very general manner in which hon. Members make their observations on these occasions, and how the House is inclined to cheer such statements and attribute them to some particular mistake at the War Office. We have had many such cases within the last few months. I ventured to interrupt the hon. Member for the Chelmsford Division of Essex when he told an amusing story in regard to these transactions of the War Office. He stated that one of his friends wrote to the War Office stating that he had a number of horses to dispose of, and he received a reply stating that he was too late. He went on to state that another of his friends wrote to the War Office a few months afterwards, and he was told that he was too early. The hon. and gallant Member for the Chelmsford Division has been good enough to leave with me the original letter, which I asked him to give me in order that I might inquire into the matter. I find that in this letter undoubtedly those statements are made, but it does not state at what date. I notice, however, that the letter is endorsed in my hon. friend's own handwriting: "9-12-98." Therefore this letter is two and a half years old, and it may refer to something which happened several years before. At the War Office we have only one desire, and that is to get face to face with the facts. We have sent out officers to various parts of the country to purchase horses, and I have asked my noble friend to see whether we cannot get more into line with the views expressed upon this subject. I desire, when cases of this sort are brought up, that we should be furnished with all the evidence, because if the War Office is placed in a position to investigate them they would be most useful. In a case which has happened some years ago obviously it is not possible for me to go into it. The War Office cannot undertake to deal with matters four or five years old thus vaguely stated. With regard to the sending of horses to South Africa, no nation has ever carried out or undertaken such a task as has fallen upon the War Office during the past few months. I quite admit that from the moment I took office I have endeavoured to impress upon Lord Kitchener that, while the Government are determined to send him out as many horses as are necessary, I thought that every horse which could be obtained in South Africa should be purchased, not only in order to give a rest to the horses sent out, after the sea voyage, but to deprive the Boers of horses as far as possible. Lord Kitchener has accordingly purchased 71,000 horses, with the result that the horses sent out are not now employed immediately after landing, as they had been before. I can assure the House that the War Office has not been blind to the claims of the home producer in the matter of buying horses, and there has lately been a very considerable increase in the number bought in Ireland. I will take care that in future the home market shall have the preference; that we give our colonial friends as much of a turn as we can; and I will also see that the mistakes made in the past so far as they have been made shall be avoided in the future as far as possible. The Government is aware of the desire of the House upon this question, and I trust that hon. Members will now con- sider that this question of the supply of horses has been discussed at sufficient length, and I hope we shall now proceed to deal with other very important questions.

The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question about requisitioning horses in South Africa under martial law. I wish to know if such horses are paid for when they are requisitioned or at the end of the war?

So far as I know, I think they would be paid for at once.

Will the right hon. Gentleman encourage the farmers by arranging dates at which they can send their horses to be sold?

I wish to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War in consequence of what fell from the noble Lord just now about the Remount Committee. In the evidence just published by the War Office Organisation Committee the Quartermaster General states that we shall have to enlarge our remount establishments, which have been found absolutely inadequate for the needs of the war. I think that is sufficient justification alone for the discussion we have raised upon this question. I hope the noble Lord quite assents to the view that officers should be sent down from the War Office to the fairs in Wiltshire, the West of England, and Ireland, and that notice of their arrival should be given, so that we may endeavour to obtain horses direct from the farmers at £28 a piece instead of £40. That was the understanding of the Committee, and I hope the noble Lord will bear that point in mind.

I wish to direct attention to the control and management of the concentration camps in South Africa. The Secretary for War originally stated, in reply to a question which I addressed to him, that all who came to these camps came of their own free will, and were as free to leave as they were to come. We have since ascertained that that is not the fact. The people were brought to these camps by force and imprisoned there. I have asked to-day whether all ministers of religion are free to enter the camps.

^* : I do not quite see how that arises on this question.

It has been ruled by the Chairman of Committees that the Engineering Vote, which is included in this Bill, has reference to the camps in South Africa.

I raised this question before, and the same objection was taken. The particular item under which it was raised was that of engineering services in the field, which includes sums for civilian labour in fixing up refuge tents, stores, huts, and hospitals. It was ruled by the Chairman that, as some of these were used for fixing up refuge camps, the question was in order.

^* : I was not present in the Committee, and I do not know what passed; but, if that is a correct statement, I confess I am not prepared to agree. It is quite true that on the Vote for the construction of huts anything relating to the construction of huts can be dealt with; but as to whether, after the huts are constructed, the House should go into the question of the conduct of the Government and consider whether persons who are allowed to go into the huts are or are not treated as prisoners, that is a totally different matter. That is a question of policy which, no doubt, can be brought up on the Appropriation Bill and on the Votes for the salaries of Ministers; but it has nothing to do with the question before the House.

I shall not persist in raising this point, because I understand that, before very long, we shall have another opportunity of raising it. I think I am perfectly in order in entering my protest, as I desire to do in a very few sentences, against the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, who said, on 25th February, that all who were brought into the camps came there of their own free will, and were also free to leave, whereas the right hon. Gentleman denied this the other day.

^* : I have ruled that to be out of order, and the hon. Member has mistaken my ruling if he thinks that I ruled that he was in order in discussing that point. Anything in relation to the construction of the huts can be discussed, but nothing as to the mode in which they are used by the Government.

The huts are ringed round with barbed-wire fences.

^* : The hon. Member may comment on that.

That is exactly what I am coming to. [An HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!] I wish to goodness the hon. Member opposite was in a barbed-wire fence. I was only going to delay the House for about two minutes, because I recognise that, under your ruling, I am not at liberty to discuss this matter. I say the fact that barbed wire has been put round some of these camps is additional proof that the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman that the women and children in these camps were free to leave was not accurate.

I can only speak by leave of the House. The hon. Member has made a personal attack on me and on my veracity, and I am sure the House will allow me to make a personal explanation. What is the nature of the charge against me? The hon. Member said that I was questioned in February last as to whether these camps were refugee camps to which people came of their own free will, or whether these people were prisoners. I am afraid I must go into this question for a few moments with the permission of the House. My information at that time was based on such mails as had arrived. I said I had no information as to the number, the locality, or, I think I said, as to the arrangements of the camps. I have not the exact words before me, because I have had no notice of this question. I also said I had asked for a report. That reply ought to have shown the House, and did, I think, show the great majority of Members, that I was not in a position to go fully into the matter. I called for that report by telegraph. None the less, in pursuance of a practice which I regret, but to which I am perfectly ready as long as I sit on this bench to attune myself to any extent, I was asked question after question pressing me to give information which I had said I had not got. I was first asked whether these people were prisoners of war; I said that as far as I knew they were not. I was then asked whether they could come and go as they pleased; I said I really had given the House all the information I had. The truth was that I knew that one camp—indeed I believe now that two camps—formed before that date were generally for refugees, where Boers who had surrendered could live with their families, and where women coming in from the country were accommodated. I did not speak, and could not speak, with regard to those camps of which I knew nothing. The hon. Member thinks I misled the House. I simply told the House what was my knowledge at the time, and, I think, I was unduly pressed to declare that of which I had no information. Subsequently I got my information, but I neither endeavoured to keep that back from the House as soon as I was challenged, nor did I for a moment shrink from defending the policy of sweeping large numbers of women and children into these concentration camps; for I believe that that policy is the only policy by which Lord Kitchener, who is carrying on the war, can hope to bring it to a conclusion. Allow me to say before I sit down that I do not believe there are many Members of this House who will suppose that I should either deliberately have stated what was not the fact, or have kept back from the House that which I knew to be the fact. Certainly I do not think any Member will accuse anyone sitting on this bench of being so foolish as to say that which is not, on a point on which it was quite evident information would soon be forthcoming. I may also say that I had not even the motive of wishing to conceal from the House the policy adopted, for the Government fully endorsed it. I trust this question may be allowed to rest, only with this protest from me. I cannot and will not be answerable for the practice which hon. Members opposite indulge in of pressing a Minister, and endeavouring to obtain from him some assertion which is afterwards to be used against him. If I have erred at all in this matter it is because I have endeavoured to give to the House as much information as I could, instead of insisting that I should have fuller notice of the question. I do not wish to ask for any indulgence on the ground that it is impossible for a man carrying on a great war to do full justice to all the work in this House as well as elsewhere, but I do think it is a disadvantage to the House, and a great disadvantage to the country, that information should be extorted which, if it happen to be erroneous, is made the subject of a charge, for which I care nothing personally, and which I do not believe any Member on this side of the House credits, but which is trumpeted round the newspapers of Europe, in countries where this country is not too popular, as an instance of evasion by a Minister of the Crown in this House in respect to matters which we dare not admit to those who have more sympathy with our opponents than they have with ourselves. This is most mischievous, not to myself nor to the Government, but to the country. I say, with all respect, in these matters in future I shall ask more freely than I have done for notice of questions, and I shall throw myself on the indulgence of the House.

I feel justified in asking permission to state exactly what occurred. I should never have made these charges against the right hon. Gentleman had it not been that I asked him within the last three or four days whether he did not inform me on a previous occasion that these refugees or prisoners in the prison camps were free to go and come as they liked. The right hon. Gentleman replied, "I never said anything of the kind." As a matter of personal explanation, and to justify myself, I claim the right to read the exact words which were used on February 26th.

I shall perhaps save the hon. Member the trouble if I make an observation. The hon. Member thought, from what occurred on 26th February, that I was referring to all the camps. It is perfectly obvious that when I was answering supplementary questions I was governed by what I had originally said in my first answer, that I had no information as to the majority of the camps. I admit that in the hurry of the moment, when answering across the floor of the House, I said without qualification with regard to those camps about which I did know that the inmates were free to go and come as they liked. The other day he asked me whether I made that statement as regards all the camps, and I said I never said anything of the kind. The hon. Member may take what view he likes, but I said nothing in regard to the majority of the camps. I told the House what was the fact.

The following is the report of what occurred—

"Mr. Dillon: Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether the women and children in these laagers are at liberty to leave them? Are they prisoners or are they free?

"Mr. Brodrick: They are not prisoners of war.

"Mr. Dillon: Are they free to leave the laagers, or are they guarded by sentries with bayonets?

"Mr. Brodrick: They come to these laagers for protection.

"Mr. John Ellis: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that no persons are inside these camps who have not gone there for protection—that they have not been driven there?

"Mr. Brodrick: I have given the House all the information I can. These camps are voluntary camps formed for protection. Those who come may go."

That occurred subsequently to a debate in the course of which I had charged the Government with forming these places as prison camps. Therefore, there can be no possibility of misunderstanding, because the charge had been made against the Government the previous night that these were prison camps, in which women and children were collected as prisoners and detained. It was to meet that charge that the right hon. Gentleman made the reply.

): I want to revert for a moment to a subject that engaged our attention previously, and that is the price which has been paid by the Government for horses in South Africa imported from the Argentine. My informant tells me that the price paid there was between £7 and £8. I do not know whether the Minister will be at liberty to say at what prices those horses were taken by the Government at Cape Town. I am told that they were taken at a price largely in excess of that paid at Buenos Ayres. Some information should be given as to the discrepancy between the price paid at Buenos Ayres and that at which they were taken at Cape Town.

.): I think it is a good tradition of this House that recognises the right of every hon. and right hon. Member to explain to the House in his own words, and it is the duty of the House to accept the explanation when it is given. It is in that spirit that I receive the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. I should like to ask one or two questions in regard to the matter raised by the hon. Member for East Mayo. As regards the sanitation of the camps, I hold in my hand a letter which appeared in the Press this morning from Miss Hobhouse—

^* : I must tell the hon. Member at once that anything that has to do with the construction of the camps, the engineers 'work, is, of course, relevant; but when it comes to the mode in which the camps are used, the amount of care taken of those in the camps, and so forth, that comes under other Votes altogether.

There is a statement in this letter as to the medical report on the camp at Bloemfontein, the conditions of which have been most seriously found fault with. It is stated to have been ready and offered to Lord Kitchener at the time this lady left the camp. I was going to ask whether the Government have received this report, and whether it can be laid before Parliament.

^* said it would not be in order to ask the question at present.

I agree with my hon. friend that it is not necessary that the right hon. Gentleman should disclaim the intention of misleading the House. No one would suggest for a moment that he was capable of doing anything of the kind. At the same time, I think it is rather a serious matter. The right hon. Gentleman evidently was not aware' of what was going on. Here is a camp at Kimberley—

^* : This is not in order. The right hon. Gentleman rose and asked the leave of the House to make a personal explanation upon what he considered to be a charge that he had wilfully misled the House. He made that personal explanation and confined himself to that charge. I allowed the hon. Member for East Mayo to give a personal explanation too with reference to an imputation which he conceived to be made against himself in the right hon. gentleman's remarks. The incident is now at an end.

If I may respectfully say so, I think you will find it is strictly within this Vote. I was going to refer to the barbed wire fixed up at Kimberley. That is distinctly in this Vote. It is what we are asked to vote money for.

^* : I interrupted the hon. Member because he was proceeding to comment on the answer made by the right hon. Gentleman.

I do not challenge the ruling. I was talking about the camp at Kimberley, where there is a barbed wire fence 8 feet high surrounding the whole of the camp. Evidently the right hon. Gentleman does not know what is going on in South Africa in respect to these camps. It is perfectly clear from the reports received from these tents that they are not in a fit condition for the accommodation of children and delicate women. They are leaky tents, and when there is anything in the nature of a storm they are perfectly sodden. They are so defective that dew sipes through them and soaks the clothes of the children. There are hundreds of cases in the camps of children suffering from diseases, and if there is no proper care taken against their getting chill or cold the cases prove fatal. In that case I think it is the duty of the Government to see that the tents afford proper shelter and protection to women and children. The Government have been apprised of the whole circumstances, and they know how serious the matter is. I saw this week a telegram in The Times stating that the deaths at the Bloemfontein camp are at the rate of 383 per 1,000 per annum. There was no information given in regard to the camps in the Transvaal. That shows that these tents are not constructed out of proper material. I think we are entitled—and I do so without bringing any charge against the right hon. Gentleman of inhumanity—to call the attention of the House of Commons to the state of things in this matter without having motives imputed to us and read into our mere statements of fact. I bring no charge of inhumanity against the right hon. Gentleman, but I do feel that I must call attention to this state of things, and say that the responsibility rests primarily on his shoulders to see that these tents are in proper condition. They are, according to his own statement, seeking our protection. They are there as voluntary refugees. I think the protection they seek ought to: be given in such a way that we shall not have these dreadful tales of mortality, which are, I think, shocking the public conscience and shocking everybody who has read the accounts of them.

^* said £3,000,000 was asked for works, buildings, and repairs, and he should like to have an explanation from the Government how much of that money was to be spent in Ireland. The people of Ireland had contributed a large portion of the money in taxation, and naturally they wished to know how much they were to get for it. He had brought before the Secretary of State for War some questions in regard to which, he was sorry to say, he got anything but a sympathetic answer. He supposed that the views of Ireland went for nothing. Resolutions had been passed in Ireland by the Irish Trades Congress calling upon the Government to erect works and provide depots in that country. The men who proposed the resolutions belonged to the Unionist party. One Member of the Unionist party from the north of Ireland had stated that the Government were not doing their duty towards Ireland with respect to the establishment of works for the supply of Government stores. He brought under the notice of the Secretary of State a question with reference to the manner of supplying the canteens at the barracks in Ireland, and he got anything but a favourable answer. Formerly all the materials for those canteens were bought in Ireland, but in recent years the supplies came from England. If depots were established he thought a good deal could be done in the way of making and the repairing of saddlery for the troops in Ireland. The tradesmen and labourers felt the want of such establishments very much. While the Irish people were asked to pay their proportion for the upkeep of the Army and Navy, they got very little in return in the shape of work. The people of England paid their quota of taxes willingly, but they had the satisfaction of getting back something in connection with the Government depots, where many obtained employment. The Commander-in-Chief had recently admitted in his evidence before the Committee that sat on the subject of reorganisation that the work which was done in this country, and represented an enormous amount of money, could have been done cheaper in Ireland. He claimed that tailoring establishments should be set up in Ireland similar to those at Pimlico and elsewhere for the manufacture of military clothing. The Irish people had to contribute their quota of the taxes, and he claimed that consequently they should get a fair share of the outlay. He, therefore, urged that establishments should be set up at Dublin, Belfast, and Cork for Government work. Unionists as well as Nationalists had made up their mind that the Irish should have their share of the work done for the Army and Navy, j and for every department to the cost of which they contributed their quota. If lie did not get a satisfactory answer now lie would come again, until he brought home to the Government their duties and responsibilities to the people of Ireland.

It is not usual to have a debate on a Consolidated Fund Bill, and I hope the right to discuss the Bill will be used in moderation.

said he wished to call attention to the unnecessary expenditure which took place in consequence of concentration camps being established so far north in the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony. It would be much better and more convenient to have the camps established in Cape Colony itself. He hoped they would have an assurance on the subject from the right hon. Gentleman. He found that on 1st May there were in the concentration camps in the Transvaal 25,000 people; in the Orange River colony, 20,000; and in Cape Colony only about 800 white people. By far the best of the camps was at Port Elizabeth. It would be more economical, as well as more humane, to establish the camps in Cape Colony, and he hoped these people would be brought south as soon as possible.

(Ross and Cromarty) rose to continue the discussion, when—

rose in his place and claimed to move" That the 'question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided:—Ayes, 235; Noes, 149. (Division List No. 287.)

AYES.
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.	Blundell, Colonel Henry	Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte	Bond, Edward	Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel	Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-	Compton, Lord Alwyne
Allhusen, Augustus H. Eden	Bousfield, Wm. Robert	Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Bowles, T Gibson(King's Lynn)	Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow)
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.	Brookfield, Colonel Montagu	Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Bull, William James	Cranborne, Viscount
Austin, Sir John	Bullard, Sir Harry	Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy	Butcher, John George	Cross, Herb. S. (Bolton)
Bailey, James (Walworth)	Carlile, William Walter	Crossley, Sir Savile
Bain, Col. James Robert.	Cautley, Henry Strother	Cubitt, Hon. Henry
Baird, John George Alexander	Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)	Dalkeith, Earl of
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A.J.(Manch'r	Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.	Dalrympje, Sir Charles
Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds	Cayzer, Sir Charles William	Davies, Sir Horatio D(Chatham
Balfour, Maj K R (Christchurch	Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Denny, Colonel
Banburv, Frederick George	Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)	Dickinson, Robert Edmond
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M.H. (Bristol	Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm	Dickson, Charles Scott
Beach, Rt. Hon. W.W.B(Hants	Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r	Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.
Bignold, Arthur	Chapman, Edward	Digby, John K. D. Wingfleld-
Bigwood, James	Churchill, Winston Spencer	Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph
Bill, Charles	Coghill, Douglas Harry	Dorington, Sir John Edward
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Lambton, Hn. Fredk. Wm.	Randles, John S.
Doxford, Sir William Theodore	Law, Andrew Bonar	Rankin, Sir James
Duke, Henry Edward	Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool	Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin	Lawson, John Grant	Reid, James (Greenock)
Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. H.	Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareh'm	Remnant, James Farquharson
Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton	Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage	Renwick, George
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward	Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie	Ridley, Hon. M. W (Stalybridge
Finch, George H.	Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.	Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine	Round, James
Firbank, Joseph Thomas	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S	Russell, T. W.
Fisher, William Hayes	Lowe, Francis William	Rutherford, John
Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon	Loyd, Archie Kirkman	Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Fletcher, Sir Henry	Lucas, Col. F. (Lowestoft)	Sadler, Col. Samuel Alex.
Flower, Ernest	Macartney, Rt. Hn. W G Ellison	Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)
Forster, Henry William	Macdona, John Cumming	Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J
Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, SW	MacIver, David (Liverpool)	Seton-Karr, Henry
Galloway, William Johnson	Maconochie, A. W.	Sharpe, Wm. Edw. T.
Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (City of Lond	M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)	Simeon, Sir Barrington
Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick	M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.	Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Gordon, Hn. J. E(Elgin&Nairn)	M'Iver, Sir L (Edinburgh, W.	Smith, HC (Northm'b Tyneside
Gore, Hn G. R. Ormsby-(Salop)	M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)	Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)
Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.)	Majendie, James A. H.	Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)
Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon	Malcolm, Ian	Spear, John Ward
Goulding, Edward Alfred	Manners, Lord Cecil	Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Green, W, D. (Wednesbury)	Maple, Sir John Blundell	Stock, James Henry
Greene, Sir E W (B'ry S Edm'nds	Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F	Stone, Sir Benjamin
Greene, Henry D).(Shrewsbury)	Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.	Stroyan, John
Greville, Hon. Ronald	Melville, Beresford Valentine	Strutt, Hn. Chas. Hedley
Groves, James Grimble	Mildmay, Francis Bingham	Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Guest, Hon. Iver Churchill	Milton, Viscount	Thorburn, Sir Walter
Guthrie, Walter Murray	Moon, Edw. Robert Pacy	Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
Hambro, Charles Eric	Moore, William (Antrim, N.)	Tritton, Chas. Ernest
Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G. (Midd.	Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow	Tufnell, Lt.-Col. Edward
Hamilton, Marq. Of (L'donderry	Morrell, George Herbert	Valentia, Viscount
Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd	Morrison, James Archibald	Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)
Haslam, Sir Alfred S.	Morton, Arthur H A.(Deptford)	Wanklyn, James Leslie
Haslett, Sir James Horner	Mount, William Arthur	Warde, Col. C. E.
Hay, Hon. Claude George	Muntz, Philip A.	Warr, Augustus Frederick
Henderson, Alexander	Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)	Wason, John C. (Orkney)
Hickman, Sir Alfred	Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)	Welby, Sir C. G. E. (Notts.)
Higginbottom, S. W.	Myers, William Henry	Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-
Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)	Newdigate, Francis Alex.	Wharton, Rt. Hon. John L.
Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset E.	Nicholson, William Graham	Whiteley, H (Ashton und. Lyne
Hope, J. F. (Sh'ffield, Brightside	Nicol, Donald Ninian	Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm
Hoult, Joseph	Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay	Willox, Sir John Archibald
Howard, J. (Mid, Tottenham)	Parker, Gilbert	Wilson, A. Stanley(York, E. R.
Hozier, Hon. James Henry C.	Parkes, Ebenezer	Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)	Pease, Herbert Pike(Darling'n)	Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse	Peel, Hn Wm. Robert Wellesley	Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.
Johnston, William (Belfast)	Percy, Earl	Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)
Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)	Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard	Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh	Platt-Higgins, Frederick	Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp	Wylie, Alexander
Keswick, William	Pretyman, Ernest George	Wyndham, Rt. Hn. George
Kimber, Henry	Pryce Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
King, Sir Henry Seymour	Purvis, Robert	Sir William Walrond and
Knowles, Lees	Pym, C. Guy	Mr. Anstruther.
NOES.
Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N.E.)	Buxton, Sydney Charles	Dillon, John
Allan, William (Gateshead)	Caine, William Sproston	Doogan, P. C.
Allen, Charles P. (Glouc.Stroud	Caldwell, James	Douglas Charles M. (Lanark)
Ambrose, Robert	Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)	Duffy, William J.
Ashton, Thomas Gair	Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Duncan, J. Hastings
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbt. H.	Cawley, Frederick	Edwards, Frank
Atherley-Jones, L.	Channing, Francis Allston	Ellis, John Edward
Barry, E. (Cork, S.)	Cogan, Denis J.	Evans, Sir Francis (Maidstone)
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)	Colville, John	Farrell, Jamds Patrick
Bell, Richard	Condon, Thomas Joseph	Fenwick, Charles
Boland, John	Craig, Robert Hunter	Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)
Boyle, James	Crean, Eugene	Ffrench, Peter
Brigg, John	Cullinan, J.	Field, William
Burke, E. Haviland-	Daly, James	Flynn, James Christopher
Burt, Thomas	Delany, William	Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co
Gilhooly, James	Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)	Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.	Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)	Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Goddard, Daniel Ford	Moss, Samuel	Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)	Moulton, John Fletcher	Robson, William Snowdon
Griffith, Ellis J.	Murphy, John	Roche, John
Hammond, John	Nannetti, Joseph P.	Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm.	Newnes, Sir George	Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)
Harwood, George	Nolan, Col. J. P. (Galway, N.)	Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Hayden, John Patrick	Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)	Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.	Norman, Henry	Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)
Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.	O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid)	Soares, Ernest J.
Holland, William Henry	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Spencer, Rt. Hn. CR (Northants
Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.	O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)	Sullivan, Donal
Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)	O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.)	Taylor, Theodore Cooke
Joicey, Sir James	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.
Jones, David Brynm'r (Swansea	O'Doherty, William	Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)
Jordan, Jeremiah	O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)	Thomas, JA (Glam'rg'n, Gower)
Joyce, Michael	O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)	Thompson, Dr EC(Monaghan, N
Kearley, Hudson E.	O'Dowd, John	Tomkmson, James
Kennedy, Patrick James	O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth	O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N	Walton, John L. (Leeds, S.)
Lambert George	O'Malley, William	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Layland-Barratt, Francis	O'Mara, James	Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan
Leigh, Sir Joseph	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.	Weir, James Galloway
Lloyd-George, David	Palmer, Sir Chas. M.(Durham)	White, Luke (York, E.R.)
Lough, Thomas	Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)	White, Patrick (Meath, N.)
Lundon, W.	Perks, Robert William	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
MacNeill, John Gordon Swift	Power, Patrick Joseph	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
M'Arthur, William (Cornwall	Price, Robert John	Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
M'Crae, George	Priestley, Arthur	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
M'Dermott, Patrick	Rea, Russell	Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)
M'Fadden, Edward	Reddy, M.	Yoxall, James Henry
M'Govern, T.	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Mansfield, Horace Rendall	Redmond, William (Clare)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Mellor, Rt. Hon. John Wm.	Rickett, J. Compton	Sir Thomas Esmonde and
Mooney, John J.	Rigg. Richard	Captain Donelan.

Question put accordingly, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

The House divided: Ayes 323; Noes 67. (Division List No 288.)

AYES.
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.	Bowles, Capt. T.B.(King's Lynn	Cubitt, Hon. Henry
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte	Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Dalkeith, Earl of
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel	Brookfield, Col. Montagu	Dalrymple, Sir Charles
Allan, William (Gateshead)	Bull, William James	Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)
Allen, C. P. (Glouc., Stroud)	Bullard, Sir Harry	Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)
Allhusen, Augustus Hy. Eden	Butcher, John George	Denny, Colonel
Allsopp, Hon. George	Buxton, Sydney Charles	Dickinson, Robert Edmond
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Caldwell, James	Dickson, Charles Scott
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Carlile, William Walter	Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.	Cautley, Henry Strother	Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-
Ashton, Thomas Gair	Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)	Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Asquith, Rt. Hn Herbert Henry	Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)	Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield
Atherley-Jones, L.	Cawley, Frederick	Disraeli, Conings by Ralph
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Cayzer, Sir Charles William	Dorington, Sir John Edward
Austin, Sir John	Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy	Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)	Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)
Bailey, James (Walworth)	Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.(Birm.	Doxford, Sir William Theodore
Bain, Colonel James Robert	Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r	Duke, Henry Edward
Baird, John George Alexander	Chapman, Edward	Duncan, J. Hastings
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r	Coghill, Douglas Harry	Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin
Balfour, Rt Hn. Gerald W (Leeds	Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William H.
Balfour, Maj KR (Christch'rch)	Colomb, Sir J. Charles Ready	Edwards, Frank
Banbury, Frederick George	Colville, John	Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H (Bristol)	Compton, Lord Alwyne	Ellis, John Edward
Beach, Rt. Hn. W. W.B. (Hants	Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas	Evans, Sir Franc. H. (Maidstone
Bell, Richard	Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow)	Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.
Bignold, Arthur	Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Fenwick, Charles
Bigwood, James	Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge	Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)
Bill, Charles	Craig, Robert Hunter	Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J(Manc'r
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Cranborne, Viscount	Finch, George H.
Bond, Edward	Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)	Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-	Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton	Firbank, Joseph Thomas
Bousfield, William Robert	Crossley, Sir Savile	Fisher, William Hayes
Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine	Ritchie, Hon. Chas. Thomson
Fletcher, Sir Henry	Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S.)	Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Flower, Ernest	Lowe, Francis William	Robson, William (Snowdon)
Forster, Henry William	Loyd, Archie Kirkman	Ropner, Colonel Robert
Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, SW	Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)	Round, James
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)	Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred	Russell, T. W.
Galloway, William Johnson	Macartney, Rt. Hn. WG Ellison	Rutherford, John
Gibbs, Hn A. C. H. (City of Lond.	Macdona, John Cumming	Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John	MacIver, David (Liverpool)	Sadler, Col. Samuel Alex.
Goddard, Daniel Ford	Maconochie, A. W.	Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)
Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.	M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)	Saunderson, Rt Hn. Col. Edw. J.
Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin&Nairn	M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.)	Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)
Gore, Hn GR. C. Ormsby-(Salop	M'Crae, George	Seton-Karr, Henry
Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.)	M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W	Sharpe, William Edward T.
Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon	M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)	Shaw, Chas. Edw. (Stafford)
Goulding, Edward Alfred	Majendie, James A. H.	Simeon, Sir Barrington
Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)	Malcolm, Ian	Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.
Greene, Sir EW (B'ry S Edm'nds	Manners, Lord Cecil	Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)	Mansfield, Horace Rendall	Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Grenfell, Wm. Henry	Maple, Sir John Blundell	Smith, HC (North'mb Tyneside
Greville, Hon. Ronald	Massey-Mainwaring. Hn. W. F.	Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)
Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)	Maxwell, W. J. H.(Dumfriessh.	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Griffith, Ellis J.	Mellor, Rt. Hon. John Wm.	Soares, Ernest J.
Groves, James Grimble	Melville, Beresford Valentine	Spear, John Ward
Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill	Mildmay, Francis Bingham	Spencer, Rt Hn C. R.(Northants
Guthrie, Walter Murray	Milton, Viscount	Stanley, Hn Arthur(Ormskirk)
Halsey, Thomas Frederick	Moon, Edward Robert Pacy	Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Hambro, Charles Eric	Moore, William (Antrim, N.)	Stock, James Henry
Hamilton, Rt Hn Ld. G. (Midd'x	Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)	Stone, Sir Benjamin
Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'derry	Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen)	Stroyan, John
Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)	Morrell, George Herbert	Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Harwood, George	Morrison, James Archibald	Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Haslam, Sir Alfred S.	Morton, Arthur H A.(Deptford	Taylor, Theodore Cooke
Haslett, Sir James Horner	Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Hay, Hon. Claude George	Moss, Samuel	Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.	Mount, William Arthur	Thorburn, Sir Walter
Helme, Norval Watson	Muntz, Philip A.	Thornton, Percy M.
Henderson, Alexander	Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute	Tomkinson, James
Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.	Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)	Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
Hickman, Sir Alfred	Myers, William Henry	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Higginbottom, S. W.	Newdigate, Francis Alexander	Tritton, Charles Ernest
Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)	Newnes, Sir George	Tufnell, Lt.-Col. Edward
Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.	Nicholson, William Graham	Valentia, Viscount
Holland, Wm. Henry	Nicol, Donald Ninian	Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.
Hope, J. F(Sheffield, Brightside	Norman, Henry	Wanklyn, James Leslie
Hoult, Joseph	Nussey, Thomas Willans	Warde, Col. C. E.
Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)	Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham	Palmer. Sir C. M. (Durham)	Warr, Augustus Frederick
Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil	Parker, Gilbert	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan
Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)	Parkes, Ebenezer	Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney
Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies	Pearson, Sir Weetman D.	Weir, James Galloway
Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse	Pease, Herbt. P. (Darlington)	Welby, Sir Charles G. E.(Notts.
Johnston, William (Belfast)	Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)	Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-
Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)	Peel, Hn Wm. Robert Wellesley	Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd
Joicey, Sir James	Percy, Earl	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)	Perks, Robert William	Whiteley, H.(Ashton-u.-Lyne)
Kearley, Hudson E.	Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh	Platt-Higgins, Frederick	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop.	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)
Keswick, William	Pretyman, Ernest George	Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Kimber, Henry	Price, Robert John	Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm
King, Sir Henry Seymour	Priestley, Arthur	Willox, Sir John Archibald
Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth	Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edw.	Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)
Knowles, Lees	Purvis, Robert	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Lambert, George	Pym, C. Guy	Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Lambton, Hon. Frederick W.	Randles, John S.	Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Law, Andrew Bonar	Rankin, Sir James	Wilson, J. W.(Worcestersh. N.
Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)	Rash, Major Frederic Carne	Wodehouse, Rt Hn. E. R.(Bath)
Lawson, John Grant	Rea, Russell	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Layland-Barratt, Francis	Reid, James (Greenock)	Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareh'm	Remnant, James Farquharson	Wylie, Alexander
Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage	Renwick, George	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Leigh, Sir Joseph	Rickett, J. Compton	Yoxall, James Henry
Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie	Ridley, Hon. M. W (Stalybridge	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.	Ridley, S Forde- (Bethnal Green	Sir William Walrond and
Levy, Maurice	Rigg, Richard	Mr. Anstruther.
NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.	Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil	O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)
Ambrose, Robert	Hayden, John Patrick	O'Dowd, John
Barry, E. (Cork, S.)	Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.	O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)
Boland, John	Jordan, Jeremiah	O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N
Boyle, James	Joyce, Michael	O'Malley, William
Burke, E. Haviland-	Kennedy, Patrick James	O'Mara, James
Burns, John	Lundon, W.	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Caine, William Sproston	MacNeill, John Gordon Swift	Power, Patrick Joseph
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)	M'Dermott, Patrick	Reddy, M.
Cogan, Denis J.	M'Fadden, Edward	Redmond, John E. (Waterford
Condon, Thomas Joseph	M'Govern, T.	Redmond, William (Clare)
Crean, Eugene	Mooney, John J.	Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Cullinan, J.	Moulton, John Pletcher	Roche, John
Daly, James	Murphy, John	Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Delany, William	Nannetti, Joseph P.	Sullivan, Donal
Dillon, John	Nolan, Col. John P.(Galway, N.	Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gow'r
Doogan, P. C.	Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)	Thompson, Dr EC (Monagh'n, N
Duffy, William J.	O'Brien, Kendal (Tipper'ryMid	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Farrell, James Patrick	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)
Ffrench, Peter	O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)
Field, William	O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Flynn, James Christopher	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)	Sir Thomas Esmonde and
Gilhooly, James	O'Doherty, William	Captain Donelan.
Hammond, John	O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

Finance Bill

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

Clause 3—

Question again proposed, "That Clause 3, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

said that it was perhaps not very convenient to discuss the principle of this clause at that hour of the evening, but that was not their fault. Perhaps the best time for its discussion would have been when the tax was first introduced, but it was said by the Government that a better opportunity would arise on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill. Then when the Second Reading came on the debate was controlled by an Amendment on the Schedule, moved by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton; and now that they had come to the Committee stage, he thought there could be no worse opportunity of discussing the principle of this particular clause and of the Amendments which had been introduced into it. That was a hopelessly inadequate way of dealing with a tax the imposition of which was, in truth, a new policy. Hitherto all our taxes had been very carefully devised in order that they might reach the general tax-payer. Take, for instance, the other taxes mentioned in this very Bill. The tea tax and the tobac o tax did not fall, as some persons hastily imagined, on trade, but on the community as a whole. The tea tax was directed at the general consumer, and the tea trade simply fulfilled the function of advancing the tax and recouping itself from the general consumer. The same observation applied to the sugar tax. Now the coal tax was commended to them by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the ground that it did not fall upon the whole community. On the contrary, the right hon. Gentleman told them that the community would pay no part whatever of the tax, although he submitted that the right hon. Gentleman could not maintain that now. He did not think that the right hon. Gentleman would justify that contention now. It had been made clear that the foreign consumer would only pay a portion of the tax; he would pay, in fact, upon only two qualities of coal—some kinds of gas coal and some kinds of Welsh, these being the only two kinds which came in any way under the principle of the monopoly which was set up in defence of the Finance Bill. These two kinds of coal, however, by no means covered the whole ground. There must be a large quantity of coal produced in this country of which we had no monopoly whatever in foreign markets, and as to which, therefore, this tax would fall directly on the trade itself.

The first observation that he had then to make was that this tax was purely and simply a trade tax, a tax not aimed at the community, but aimed at a trade. It operated as a penalty, not, indeed, upon a whole trade, but upon that class of traders who had recourse to a particular foreign market. We had, therefore, for the first time in our generation a tax which was aimed at a trade in exoneration of the general taxpayer. But it had a further fault, a most serious economic fault—it purported to hold out to the general taxpayer a positive pecuniary benefit. He was bound to say he listened with astonishment to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's intimation to the coal consumers and to manufacturers who used the coal that they might get their coal cheaper by means of this tax. That was a somewhat bold way of inviting support for a tax to intimate that the effect would be not merely to raise revenue, but to put gain into the pockets of one class of trader at the expense of another class of trader. There was no surer sign of vicious and unjust finance than the attempt to benefit a certain set of consumers or "traders at the expense of the trade on which the tax was put. It had been said that the tax had met with a certain degree of popularity. It was easy to obtain popularity with the general community by putting the burdens of the consumer upon a certain trade or section. But that was a means of obtaining popularity to which no Chancellor of the Exchequer had stooped for the last fifty or sixty years. Every previous Chancellor of the Exchequer had sought to adjust his burdens so that they fell on the whole community which derived benefit from the expenditure to which the tax gave rise. But the right hon. Gentleman had come forward with a new proposal of sectional taxation for the relief of the community at large. This method of sectional taxation followed immediately, and perhaps necessarily, on another financial injustice of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made himself the special champion—namely, sectional relief from taxation. There would have been no necessity to discuss this sectional tax but that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given a much greater amount than he would get from this tax to the class of which he was a distinguished representative. The two taxes ought, therefore, to be judged together, as an illustration of the same policy; they had the same principle and the same vice.

The House had heard a good deal about appeals to the working classes to bear their share of taxation. The right hon. Gentleman had told them—and rightly so—that they were willing to bear their fair proportion of the cost of the war. But why was the right hon. Gentleman so anxious to put the taxation on them at the same time that he was giving relief to another class very much better able to bear taxation. Let him rather address his appeals to the patriotism of the landed classes. He was not putting additional taxation on them; he was giving them relief in a measure which was the counterpart of the measure the House was considering that day. This was the outcome of the right hon. Gentleman's talk about broadening the basis of taxation. It came to this—this was a conflict between the miner's wage and the landowner's rent. ["Oh!"] Of course, hon. Gentlemen opposite were not disposed to accept that view, but if they recollected a little better the earlier Budgets of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, they would have known that he gave a warning of the policy he was about to undertake. He told them quite plainly in his very first Budget, when he was speaking on the subject of national extravagance, that we could not go on with the present scale of expenditure on the present fiscal system; in other words, he indicated that they would have to have recourse to some form of trade taxation. The right hon. Gentleman, when he championed the Agricultural Rates Relief Act, knew perfectly well then that he was working towards the system of taxation on. trade which now he desired to make an integral part of our financial system. He protested against the right hon. Gentleman's doing this under the title of a Free Trader. Those who were attacking the elementary principles of Free Trade had no right to claim to be Free Traders, as the right hon. Gentleman professed to be. This was the first step in protection pure and simple. The right hon. Gentleman had held it out that it was no advantage that our coa should be taken by foreign manufacturers to be used by them to cheapen the productions they sent us. He had, in fact, adopted the doctrines hitherto championed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thanet, and by the hon. Member for Central Sheffield, that it was a disadvantage to have our imports cheapened, because it would be some advantage to the foreign producer as against the English producer. That was protection pure and simple. There was no surer sign of protection than to make imports dearer. The right hon. Gentleman, when he was dealing with the Report of the Committee of 1873, expressed his dissent from the opinions of that Committee, which had pronounced against an export duty on coal, because the export of coal cheapened our returns of imports. That was the conclusion of Free Traders, and, as he had said, the right hon. Gentleman dissented from it. He had, in fact, gone back to 1842 for his tax, and for his principles as well. They had always supposed that English statesmen recognised that international trade was interchangeable, and that it was to the advantage of a nation to get as much as it could in return for what it exported. But the right hon. Gentleman seemed to view with alarm the fact that if we sent coal out to foreign countries it might be used by foreign manufacturers to make the goods they returned to us cheaper. That was a new conception of economic science. Let them be under no doubt as to the true character of this tax. The real excuse put forward for it was that it was a small tax. Why were they having all that debate over a tax which was only to bring in a revenue of a million or so? The answer was, because it was the first step in a new policy of trade taxation; it was the first step towards protection; it was the old Tory policy of trying to put burdens on trade for the relief of the hereditary burdens of land. When it was said this was a small tax, he was led to ask, was it a small tax in relation to trade? Whether a tonnage tax was small or great depended on the question of what was the tonnage profit in ordinary and bad times. When a landlord let his coal he tried to get as much as he could out of the coalowner after the latter had left himself a fair profit. In Northumberland the royalty was 6d.; in the Midlands it was 3d. and 4d.; in South Wales there were royalties up to Is. per ton, while others did not exceed 8d.

): In Scotland it is 1s.

said he was rather surprised to hear that it was so much, but he did not think anyone would deny that the average royalty over England, and he thought over Scotland too, was much under 1s. It was therefore proposed to put a tonnage tax on the trade which was nearly double the amount of profit made per ton. But there is another way of testing the effect of this tax. Not only was it greatly in excess of what the royalty owner thought he could get out of the trade, but it was higher than the import duty imposed by foreign countries. For instance, France, in order to handicap English coal, had laid on it a duty of less than Is. per ton.

^* : 11¾d.

If the right hon. Gentleman said that it was 11¾d. no doubt that was right, but that was what France was doing to handicap English coal. It was the same in Russia, and although the duty varied in that country, he did not think it was less than 2s. a ton. That was a duty which was introduced not merely to handicap English coal, but with a view of prohibiting English coal, and there was very serious danger to English coal arising on the Black Sea on account of that duty. That, again, was another illustration of the way the export duty would operate. The right hon. Gentleman gave an admirable illustration as to the difficulty of the coal export trade in meeting its competitors in foreign markets. He said that the English railway companies gave preferential, rates in favour of the coal export trade. Had he considered the significance of that? He mentioned it as a matter of complaint, and another hon. Member protested against it, and wished to know whether the Government would take steps to prevent it. Did it not occur to the right hon. Gentleman or to the hon. Member why the railway companies should favour the export coal trade? Was it from economic motives, or because they desired to give the foreigner the benefit? No; the railway companies gave a preferential rate because it was necessary to. assist the export trade, and he ventured to say that much of the right hon. Gentle- man's tax would fall on the railway companies. They might depend upon it that everybody would, of course, struggle to keep the trade going, and the railway companies would have to share that struggle as well as the rest; and if the export trade were to be kept alive at all the railway companies would have to bear a considerable part of the tax. That showed the seriousness of foreign competition in the coal trade, and how great the tax was in relation to the margin of profit, and also how keen was the competition that had to be met in foreign markets.

Then, the right hon. Gentleman used one of the most extraordinary arguments, and one which he could commend to the consideration of the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman said supposing we could not compete in foreign markets, what then? Then, according to the right hon. Gentleman, the coal would be left in the earth for the benefit of posterity, and many pits in England would be idle, and many thousands of men would be thrown out of employment; and that at a time when an unemployed problem would have to be faced on the return of the troops from South Africa. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that there would be no unemployed problem, but there would be a, very serious unemployed problem indeed, and that was the occasion on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested that it might be to the advantage of the country to let foreign competitors have the markets and let English pits remain idle, in order that posterity might have the benefit. In addition there would be, of course, a disturbance of the delicate adjustment of international trade. It was well worth remembering that there was no English trade so essential to the carrying commerce of the country as cargoes of coal, which went everywhere and cheapened imports, and yet the right hon. Gentleman said it did not matter, as the coal would remain in the earth for the benefit of posterity. That was certainly an extraordinary altruism, because what was the right hon. Gentleman proposing in favour of posterity? He was not proposing to keep something for posterity which would be worth something more to posterity than it was to them. Posterity would have to employ the same amount of labour to get the coal from the earth that they did; and the coal was to remain in the earth in order that, in fifty years or a hundred years, it might be taken out by posterity at some unknown price, and at a time when perhaps the coal trade would be less prosperous than it was at present. He had never heard a more extraordinary doctrine in all the selfish annals of mankind. Such philanthropy as that was most extraordinary; and the only difficulty about it was that posterity would not believe it, especially as emanating from a Chancellor of the Exchequer who had suspended the Sinking Fund. But what would posterity be likely to say? He thought they would be more likely to say that it would have been better, instead of the coal being left in the earth, to the detriment of English commerce, that it had been turned into reproductive capital, which would grow as years went on. Let the Committee consider themselves in the position of posterity. Would it be suggested that they would be better off if their forefathers, instead of working and selling coal, had left it in the earth? Certainly not. They were all the better off because their forefathers had worked the coal and added to the capital of the country. And if they had not, England, instead of being as rich as it was, would be smaller and poorer. Therefore, far from reproving our forefathers for working coal, the country was grateful to them.

The right hon. Gentleman talked about exporting our capital. If they were to have new economics in England, he should like the right hon. Gentleman to give a definition, though he would find it very hard, of capital in relation to coal. In order to become capital, coal had to be raised and worked and sold, and the right hon. Gentleman would find it very difficult to supply a definition except on that principle. The right hon. Gentleman's idea of commerce appeared to be that coal was not to be produced now when prices were good and trade was prosperous, but that a sort of forward contract on behalf of posterity was to be made for fifty years hence, when prices might be low and trade bad. They had had the new diplomacy, and now they were getting the new finance which was not of a very wholesome character. Among the various indications of the popularity of the tax there were one or two very instructive ones. For instance, why had the hon. Member for Middlesbrough been approached by Middlesbrough manufacturers with a view to getting his support for the tax on coal? Why, because they used a great deal of coal, and they thought that the export tax would help them. He would invite his Middlesbrough friends to consider the effect of the tax, because if the tax were good it would apply with singular force to the iron mines of the Cleveland district. They also exported ore taken out of the earth, and railway companies and shipbuilders would like to get Cleveland iron still cheaper, and so they might look forward to seeing the principle of the tax applied to the Cleveland district as well as to the colliery districts, especially as so much of the Cleveland product was sent to aid the foreigner. The foreigner was a customer, but then, of course, the protectionist principle was that it did not matter if the customer were killed in getting at the competitor. That seemed to be the idea. Suppose the principle were to be extended to the Cleveland district, why should it not proceed further? Why stop at raw material? Tools might lie made cheaper in Sheffield for the rest of England by means of an export duty, and in fact the principle might be extended to everything that was wanted more cheaply. The Chancellor of the Exchequer appealed to various trades to support the tax by suggesting that they would make a profit out of it, but it was capable of indefinite and most dangerous application. At all events, they would probably have as time went on some modification of the view with regard to the tax when other industries and other trades found similar taxes applied to them.

Several hon. Members talked of the danger of retaliation. He would take three countries, Spain. France, and Norway. France and Norway had an irresistible weapon of retaliation in pit props, and Spain had a weapon of retaliation in the ore that was exported for shipbuilding and other purposes. He would commend the particular illustration of Spain to the right hon. Gentleman. Again and again Spain, which was not supposed to be a financial model, had been urged to put a tax on its ore and again and again refused, because it had ascertained the value to it of that export trade. But a fallacy which was so obvious to Spain was a fallacy which. has captivated the right hon. Gentleman. He would urge the right hon. Gentleman, even at the last moment, to give the tax greater consideration than he had been able to give it up to the present. When he introduced it, he told the House fairly and frankly enough that he had not been able to make adequate inquiries from those engaged in the trade, because he was afraid they would have forestalled the tax. A trade tax could not be introduced after adequate inquiry, because any such inquiry would give the tax away. That was a general principle which applied to trade taxation; but they were talking now of having a Commission to inquire into the subject, and that was in itself a reason, why, now that the right hon. Gentleman had fuller information, he should withdraw the tax. If he persisted in it he would be responsible for one of the most: senseless and disastrous blows ever struck by any Government at the. prosperity of the country.

^* said he would like to acknowledge the consideration which, had been shown by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the North of England, and to Scotland with reference to the tax. There was no doubt that the North of England and Scotland had been very hardly hit. It was pointed out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer at a very early stage of the Budget that an ad valorem duty would perhaps be more satisfactory, and it was pointed out also that if the tax were extinguished on the lower qualities of coal it would be practically equal to an ad valorem duty in Northumberland.. As a matter of fact, the concession of the right hon. Gentleman applied to the total export output of Northumberland reduced the tax to about 8d. per ton, which would practically amount to an ad valorem duty, because the price of Northumbrian coal as compared with Welsh coal was as eight to twelve, and he was thankful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for having considered the case of the North of England in that way. But although that concession had been granted on grounds of justice, it did not at all prove that the principle of the tax was correct. He did not agree that the principle of the tax was correct, and the fact that great concessions had been made showed that the matter had not been thoroughly investigated, which he thought was a pity having regard to the great importance of the subject. It also showed that those who applauded the tax and even complained that it was not higher were not entirely right in taking that view. He, for one, was satisfied that the matter should be left as it was, and he hoped that the lesson they had learned in the discussions which had taken place would prevent the possibility of the extension of such a tax. It came as a bolt from the blue, and had set many people thinking. It had set the London coal ring thinking that they possibly might be next attacked, because when there was a disposition to tax a commodity like coal it was very difficult to stop it. He did not believe that the coalowners would be able to contribute any more, but in all probability the coal ring would have to be called to account. He had seen a balance sheet showing the enormous profits which had been made by the London coal ring, amounting to hundreds of thousands of pounds. There was another class which would also look with apprehension to what the Government would propose in the next Budget, and that was the inland coal owners. The whole popularity of the coal tax had arisen from the fact that people had been tremendously aroused by the very high prices which had been charged for coal, and the gentlemen he had referred to would naturally think it would be their turn next. There was another class that would also be set thinking and that was the royalty owners. He personally knew many royalty owners, and they had expressed to him their disapprobation of the tax, and he had no doubt that that disapprobation was produced by the fear that it might be their turn next. There was no logical line of difference between taxing the man who produced the coal and the man who owned the coal and leased it to the producer.

The division the other night showed that feeling on that question was very high, and he was not so sure that the result of that division could be explained on the gastronomic theory. For the royalty owners, as well as for the other classes he had mentioned, the writing was on the wall. That would also be helped by the knowledge that, at all events in the north of England, the foreigner would not pay the tax. The hon. Member for Gateshead mentioned the other evening the case of a Danish railway company, which was in the habit of purchasing 50,000 tons of coal per annum in the north of England and in Wales. He was a member of the firm which had had that contract for twenty years, but now two-thirds of it was diverted to Westphalia and one-third remained in Wales. The foreigner might pay the tax on Welsh coal, but he would not pay it on north of England coal. The tax would be discussed before the public in the inquiry which had been promised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and by the time the Commission had reported it would be found that that particular form of taxation was a mistake. Personally, he would not oppose the clause. They had had a fair fight, and had liberal concessions from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he was disposed to wait until the result of the tax came to light, which he believed would prevent any recurrence of it. He thanked the House for having listened to him, and he would only add that he would not vote against the Government on that occasion.

^* said he had not intervened in the discussions although he was connected with that rather unpopular class the coalowners; but, as a number of his constituents were engaged in the coal industry, and had strong views as to this duty, he should like to say a few words before the clause was added to the Bill. They had listened to the hon. Member who had just spoken, and had heard the conclusion at which he had arrived, which was not quite what they had expected from his argument. The hon. and learned Member for South Shields had contributed, as he always did, a most interesting speech to the discussion, and he wished to associate himself with everything that the hon. and learned Member had said, particularly the strong point he had made of the tax being, after all, only a sectional trade tax. Speaking as a Midland coal-owner, he thought it was unfair to place the tax on the comparatively small area on which it would fall. If the tax had to be imposed at all, it would have been fairer to have put it on the whole of the coal industry. They had had a most businesslike discussion on Clause 3. After all, it was the Minister in charge of a Bill that generally gave the note and key and temper to the discussion, and it was no surprise to hon. Members who had the advantage of associating with the right hon. Gentleman for years to observe the excellent way in which he had conducted the discussions. He kept the House in good temper, and, above all, he never tried to use the closure. The right hon. Gentleman knew that he would lose more than he would gain by resorting to that implement. As the discussions went on, his amazement increased that a right hon. Gentleman of the calibre, talents, and experience of the right hon. Gentleman should have gone out of his way to propose a tax of that kind. He ventured to think no more injurious, irritating, or, as regards its consequences, complicated tax could be devised. What was the right hon. Gentleman going to gain by it? He could only suppose, as had been suggested, that it was the thin edge of the wedge of the new policy. He ventured to say they never would have heard of the tax were it not for the extraordinary and abnormal profits of the coal owners in 1900. But surely a more sandy foundation never existed for a great fiscal change. Everyone know that the year 1900 was of an unprecedented and abnormal character. As a coal owner he ventured to say that no one would suffer more in the long run for 1900 than the coal owners themselves. During the last forty years he had noticed that when they were upon the mountain peak they soon went down to the valley, and remained there for a long time. Those of them who shared the harvest of 1900, and managed to invest securely what they had got, were richer than they previously had been, but in the long run 1900 would not be to their advantage. But he ventured to very respectfully state that the figures which the Chancellor of the Exchequer read to the House, to the effect that more than £30,000,000 sterling of profit was made by the coal trade in 1900, was a little unworthy of his greater reputation as a financier. The figures would not bear examination, and while the right hon. Gentleman was reading them he wished he could have the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a witness chair and have an opportunity of putting ten or twelve questions to him. The Return which had been since issued had entirely undermined the right hon. Gentleman's figures.

Oh, no.

^* : The right hon. Gentleman thought it had not, but he thought it had. The right hon. Gentleman would admit that in the figures he quoted sufficient account had not been taken of the increase in the number of men employed.

I did make one mistake, I admit. I put the profits of the coal owners in 1900 at, I think, a million less than they were.

^* said that the difference between himself and the right hon. Gentleman was much greater than he had imagined. In his opinion the right hon. Gentleman did not estimate at all adequately the enormous increase which had taken place in the cost of stores, and he did not realise the risk which was attendant in the employment of capital in mines. He thought he could show the right hon. Gentleman some confidential information as to profits which would bring him to a different frame of mind. After all, the coal trade deserved to be a profitable trade in one respect: the coal owner was taking up every year the corpus of his estate, and any man who treated what he got from his colliery as income would find himself at the end of his lease in a very poor position indeed. Again as to risks he wondered how many hon. Members realised what it meant to be down a mine fighting the forces of nature in a great gob fire. The Chancellor of the Exchequer knew very well that land or other property was not likely to be destroyed by an earthquake, but every coal owner was exposed to risk which could only be met by the greatest watchfulness and care. Happily, they had been very free from great explosions and the most unhappy loss of life caused by them. But he was, nevertheless, sure that the risk of the coal trade had not been adequately realised. He wished to know on which leg the right hon. Gentleman desired to stand. He talked about keeping the coal for posterity, but if the coal were not extracted and exported the right hon. Gentleman would not get his tax. It was a new departure. It would have entirely unforeseen consequences, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would be willing to admit that in his investigations he had found that some of the consequences of the tax, which he never expected when he proposed it, were now apparent. The tax would, in his humble judgment, ultimately find its way, no doubt after some interval, as most taxes did, on to the shoulders of the consumer in this country. Of course they all knew that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to face tremendous difficulties, and only yesterday in a speech he referred to the serious aspect of a situation in which the ordinary national expenditure was growing at a faster rate than the ordinary national revenue. The right hon. Gentleman rather taunted his right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition for not proposing some alternative to the sugar duty, and he said that that was the duty of anyone in the position of his right hon. friend who objected to a particular mode of taxation. If, however, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would read the speech he delivered on the 8th June, 1885, which led to very important consequences, and of which he moved a resolution against the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill, he would find that he then stated that he was not bound to propose an alternative; therefore he was forgetting the position which he himself had taken up when he challenged the position of his right hon. friend. The opposition to the tax was wide spreading within certain limits, and deep seated. He was sure that it would be admitted that a tax which excited such a speech as that to which they had listened with interest and admiration from the hon. Member for Morpeth must have in it some elements of mischief. He had given the best consideration he could to the matter in the light of his own experience, and he would say in conclusion that he would vote against the proposal with the clearest possible conviction.

said that the difficulty of an export duty was that it caused the maximum amount of inter- ference with trade and resulted in a minimum amount of actual cash; but, speaking as one who was largely interested in colliery matters and who had considerable interest in the export trade, he did not think that the tax would be the end of that trade. Although there had been much exaggeration as to the profits of the colliery owners, and very much exaggeration as to English coal being a monopoly, and although a tax of a shilling a ton was no doubt a considerable increase in the cost of supplying English coal to its consumers abroad, still, he did not think it would be any very serious blow to the industry, or that they should refrain from voting for the tax. He wished to draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to one alteration he had made in the clause, and he would ask him to consider whether it had been done in the fairest and best manner. A rebate was to be granted on all coal below the value of 6s. f.o.b. He would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider whether it would not be fairer to fix the price, not f.o.b., but at the pit's mouth, not of course 6s., because that would be too large a rebate, but some foreign figure. The present proposal would act unfairly as between different districts. A district from which the railway rate to the port was only Is. would have a rebate on all coal of less value than 5s. a ton, whereas a district where the average railway rate to the port was 3s. would only be allowed a rebate on coal to the value of 3s. a ton and under. The colliery nearer the sea would get a rebate on all coal between 3s. and 5s. per ton, whereas no such rebate would be given to the colliery farther from the sea. He quite understood how pleased the hon. Member for Sunderland was at the proposal, because collieries in the North of England had a very low rate to the sea, whereas collieries in Nottinghamshire, Yorkshire, and Derbyshire had a rate of 3s. They would only get a rebate on coal valued at 3s. or under, whereas the North of England collieries would get a rebate on coal valued at 5s. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consider the matter he would find that it was not fair as between different districts. What the export duty did was to increase the cost of the cargo from the port to the point at which the coal was consumed, and therefore ultimately, no doubt, the total quantity of coal which was sent abroad would be diminished, and in that way the collieries which were farthest from the sea would suffer the most. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would see that his present proposal would put one district at a disadvantage as compared with another, and he hoped that the rebate would be on the price of coal at the pit's mouth. There would be no difficulty whatever in doing that. His own calculation was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would lose something like a million sterling by the concessions he had made, and he thought that ultimately the Chancellor of the Exchequer would find that he would lose more than he anticipated. He realised fully the difficulties which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to face. He did not anticipate that any very serious injury would be caused by the coal duty, and, in all matters connected with it, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would do his best to make it equal as between different districts.

^* said that all interested in the coal trade in the North of England, including many in his own constituency, deprecated the coal duty, because they felt they would be seriously affected by it. But it was chiefly on behalf of the miners that he wished to speak. It should not be thought for a moment that the miners in Northumberland, any more than any other class, wished to evade the payment of their fair proportion of taxation towards the war, which many of them approved and supported. He did not mean to suggest that those who supported the war policy were anxious to repudiate their engagements, but they felt that, had it not been for the shortsightedness of the Government, the cost of the war would have been very materially diminished. It was, however, expected that taxation would, as far as possible, have been equally divided on a broad basis among all classes, and that one particular industry should not have been selected for special taxation, and not only one industry, but only one part of that industry. The coal owners' case had been put forward in the House moderately and ably. They were well able to take care of themselves, but was it not unreasonable to ask why in addition to the income tax, on which they were assessed in the ordinary way, they should be asked for what amounted to an extra graduated income tax, He would not attempt to argue the economic aspect of a tax on exports, but he did not for a moment imagine that the tax would be paid by the foreign consumer, but by the British consumer. He protested against the tax on behalf of the miners in Northumberland, who produced the coal and who regarded it as very unjust. The Colonial Secretary, speaking in Birmingham on May 10th, said he thought the miners ought to pay their share of the war expenditure, but they would pay their fair share through the sugar tax, and the Colonial Secretary in that speech showed that he was as ignorant of the conditions of the coal trade as he was of the methods of diplomacy. As the committee knew, the wages of the miners were settled by a sliding scale, regulated according to the average selling price of coal every quarter. This sliding scale system in Northumberland and Durham worked very well, owing to the good sense of the employers and of the men and of their leaders, but the men knew perfectly well that after the next ascertainment their wages would be reduced in proportion to the selling price of coal, and they naturally asked why they should have to suffer through the action of a Government which pretended to be the friend of the working man. In the speech to which he had alluded the Colonial Secretary said that he was glad that the miners were not to be the cat's paw of the mine owners, and he said that the miners would be very wise to reserve their funds to fight the coal owners. He thought words of that kind coming from a responsible Minister were very much to be deprecated. The right hon. Gentleman had since endeavoured to explain his meaning away, but really only begged the question, and the man in the street (of whom they had so often heard) would put the only obvious interpretation upon it. The Board of Trade had from time to time endeavoured, sometimes, he was glad to say, successfully, to settle trade disputes, but he ventured to think that the action of the President of the Board of Trade would not be facilitated by such a mischievous speech as that delivered by the Colonial Secretary. This tax had also been defended on the ground of the necessity for preventing the depletion of our coal fields. The alarm on this question might be well founded or not, but it was impossible to materially prolong the life of our coal fields by artificial means, however desirable it was to do so. If he thought the foreigner would pay the tax he would not oppose it, but they in the North of England knew very well that it was not the foreigner who would pay. The tax was wrong in principle and unjust in its incidence, and therefore he had no hesitation in voting against it.

Although it is late, I hope the Committee will not be impatient. After all this is a new and very important question affecting a great, trade, and the House of Commons would, I think, be well advised to give it all the consideration in its power. The question has been very reasonably discussed and an opportunity ought to be given to all who desire to express their views. I do not desire to occupy the time of the House as I had a very full opportunity on the Second Reading to express my objections to this tax. Still less is it necessary to-night to repeat these objections because of two speeches to which we have listened. From the economic standpoint the hon. and learned Member for South Shields stated the objections to the tax in an admirable manner, and that speech was followed by a speech from a hon. Member opposite, who, however, does not intend to support his views by opposing the tax with his vote. It was, however, a warning to other interests whose fate was to follow, and I particularly noted the very emphatic manner in which the hon. Member told the owners of mining royalties what they might expect as a natural consequence. They had had two warnings: the speech to-night, and the division the other night. If the coal industry is going to be taxed, no partner in it could less expect to be relieved than the royalty owner. I confess I do not believe in that danger which in former years had been expressed of the exhaustion of our coalfields; and I believe it will be shown by the inquiry the Chancellor of the Exchequer has agreed to institute that there is no cause for that apprehension. As to making the foreigner pay the tax, that is the consolation the Protectionists always point to. Their object apparently is to take it out of their customers, but that is not a sound commercial policy. I agree with my hon. friend who has just spoken as to the mischievous character of the remark he quoted from the Colonial Secretary, that the miners should save their money to fight the mine owners; but the right hon. Gentleman was not the originator of the remark; it came from a quarter whence it might have least been expected—from the President of the Board of Trade. When the President of the Board of Trade was called on to settle so mischievous a thing as a strike in the coal trade—as he might be one of these days—he would be reminded of that observation.

I never suggested that a strike would be desirable. I said that rather than bring about a universal strike at once it would be wiser on the part of the miners, if they believed that the tax would be put upon them by the coal owners, to save their money to resist the coal owners.

A more dangerous and mischievous doctrine proceed from a President of the Board of Trade I have never heard. I will not repeat what I have said about this tax, but supposing a student of economic science were asked in examination what were the characteristics of a bad tax, he would say, first, that it should be an export duty; next, that it should be an ad valorem duty; and, thirdly, that it should be a trade duty. All taxes are evils, and these evils are the consequences, of the greatest of all evils—and that is, war. The amount of the evil may be. measured by the total financial Bill now. under consideration—a debt of 150 millions, and the largest army that ever was collected to meet the smallest foe since the days of Xerxes. Of course the taxes have to be found, but I cannot congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on selecting this tax. I know the right, hon. Gentleman's industry and ability, but it shows the extremity to which he has been reduced when he proposes a tax which, under cross-examination, had to be reduced by nearly one-half.

^* :No, no. The contract concessions only apply for one year.

:Yes but this Budget only applies to one year-Surely if there is an elementary proposition in finance it is that the Budget is an annual statement to provide for the annual necessities of the year. If a tax, after it is brought forward, has to be reduced by a half, what does that show? It shows that the conditions of the tax had not been ascertained. It was not impossible to ascertain that there were different classes of coal, and that a tax of Is. upon all would introduce differences between the different qualities. I represent a constituency which is to have no abatement, and consequently, I owe the right hon. Gentleman no thanks for the distinction he has made. I have already expressed my absolute objection to this tax in its economic aspect, but still more in its social aspect, and I am as convinced as ever that the main weight of it will fall on the miners, and none of the arguments which have been adduced have induced me to alter that opinion. It is in the interests of the miners more than of any other class that I oppose this tax, and the Committee ought by every means at their disposal to oppose the tax this year and oppose it still more as a permanent addition to the taxation of the country.

^* : In view of the considerable discussion which has taken place on this matter—[An HON. MEMBER: Two hours and a half.] We discussed it for two nights on the resolution, and we have now discussed it for nearly two days in Committee, and although I quite appreciate the fact that hon. Members opposite object to the principle of the tax, still I think it is not unreasonable that they should now confine the discussion to the clause itself

^* said that there had been no discussion on the clause since the very important alterations introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

^* : I heard the hon. Member say himself that those alterations mitigated his objection to the clause.

^* said he carefully .guarded himself against using the word "mitigated." He said he appreciated the efforts of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to come nearer to their view, but that the clause was still very unsatisfactory.

The hon. Member at any rate expressed the view that his opposition to the clause had been diminished, but I must say if all my concessions are met not merely with continued opposition, but with demands for prolonged discussion, it is a very poor encouragement to make any concession at all. I was rather surprised at the arguments used this evening against the clause. They have been absolutely contrary to one another. The right hon. Gentleman said that this tax was the necessary consequence of the war expenditure, but in the view of the hon. and learned Member for South Shields, who made an able speech in opposition to the clause, that was not the reason at all. It was that we desired by the clause to provide means for what are called doles to landlords, but what really is the payment of half the rates of farmers who are certainly less able to bear taxation than the coal owner; in fact, that the coal tax was to maintain the Agricultural Rating Act. I demur altogether to both these propositions. On whom is this tax to fall? I know it is a favourite theory with some hon. Members opposite that it will fall on the miners. That is the view of the right hon. Gentleman, but it is not the view of the hon. and learned Member for South Shields, for the other night he said in so many words that the foreigners would pay the tax until they enlarged their means of production; and if the hon. and learned Member would look into the possibilities of that he would find that it is practically impossible so far as we can for see that the European production could be so enlarged as to supply European demands for coal. If so, where is the tax on miners? Then another hon. Member says that the tax will fall on the railways, and the hon. Member for Nottingham began by suggesting that it will fall on the coal owners. I contend, as I have always contended, that in the main the tax will fall on the consumers, and the hon. Member for Nottingham at the close of his speech made that admission. And who is the consumer? Why, mainly the foreigner. I have some little proof of the truth of that from France, Belgium, and Denmark. The manager of the Copenhagen Gas Company wrote—

"The duty will increase our annual expenditure by £3,000, but we shall not cease to buy English coals. The additional expenditure is inconvenient, but, considered from an English standpoint, the ado made about the tax is incomprehensible, and seemed to be wanting in common sense."

Then, again, I find a report in the Independence Beige of May 20th of a meeting of an important iron company at Antwerp, which owns a mine in South Wales. The chairman congratulated the shareholders on the fact that coal delivered at Antwerp from this mine would cost 11½ francs a ton, as against 19 francs for coal of the same quality from Charleroi, in Belgium, and that would be after paying the shilling tax. The hon. Member for South Shields spoke about the effect of the import duty in France and Russia upon our coal. He said it was a check to our export trade. It has not proved to be so. Our export trade to France has grown to 8,000,000 tons a year in spite of the export duty, and the trade with Russia has similarly grown. Their duties do not keep out our coal, and it is a fact that in the western part of France there is a great demand for British coal, both for steam and agricultural purposes—for burning lime in lime-kilns, for which it is distinguished. The Consular Reports state that British coal bakes lime better than French coal, and in half the time, so that they must absolutely have this coal. Even when they paid 32s. a ton for it in 1900, they imported 1,820,000 tons, as against 1,558,000 tons at. £1 in 1889. This whole talk about our coal being kept out by this duty is absolutely ludicrous. There was only one class of coal which was in danger, and that I have provided for in the Amendment which I have proposed. When the matter was discussed my action was gratefully acknowledged by Members on all sides of the House, although the right hon. Gentleman now taunts me with what I have done.

I have done nothing of the kind.

^* : I do not wish to pursue the subject, but I trust that after what I have said the Com- mittee may feel that I have endeavoured to meet the objections to this clause in a fair and generous spirit; for I do not desire that any proposals for taxation which it may be my fortune to make should leave any sense of injustice behind. I have felt the weight of the objections raised from Scotland and Northumberland, especially in the admirable speech of the hon. Member for Morpeth. I have felt very much also the views put before me by the deputation from the miners of England, and I have endeavoured to meet these objections as. far as I reasonably could. I have proposed this tax not merely for the sake of one year, but because I believe it to be a just tax, and one which will do no harm to the industry to which it relates. It has been said that it is the beginning of protection. It is nothing of the kind. It is a tax which was reimposed and recommended by Sir Robert Peel and Mr. Gladstone, and I am content to follow them in my financial proposals.

^* said, although he intended to reserve what he wished to say for another stage of the Bill, he would just now say that the tax was unsound in principle and unfair in its incidence,, and that the political methods and arguments that had been used in support of it were equally unsound. A more cowardly proposal had never been made in the House of Commons by any Government. He would give his reasons for that statement. There was not a single representative of His Majesty's Government—and he challenged contradiction—that represented a constituency whose interests were affected by the tax. The miners, said the Colonial Secretary, ought to bear a fair share of war expenditure. The miners were prepared to bear a fair share. It was the unfair share put upon them against which they protested. He would content himself with those observations until the report stage of the Bill was reached.

said he desired to acknowledge the manner in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had endeavoured to meet the views of some districts, and he recognized. that the education of the right hon. Gentleman was proceeding apace. The tax was not a well-considered tax. The right hon. Gentleman had said that it, had come to stay, but in face of the con- cessions of the right hon. Gentleman he maintained that the tax ought to be an ad valorem tax. How could it be possible for the tax to be fair and just when Scotch coal was shipped f.o.b. at 9s. a ton, whereas Welsh coal was shipped at 18s. or 19s.? The right hon. Gentleman had said that the foreigner would pay the tax. He quite admitted that, as far .as Welsh coal was concerned, he might, because it was an unique coal, and in spite of the Finance Bill its price had actually advanced. He hoped that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced his next Budget he would appreciate the justice of substituting an ad valorem tax.

^* said that no opportunity had been given to discuss the alterations in the clause, and the right hon. Gentleman had really put forward no serious argument in favour of them, but had endeavoured to shield himself behind the opinions expressed by Mr. Gladstone when he was a protectionist and Sir Robert Peel. The right hon. Gentleman claimed that he was in favour of free trade. He did not know how the right hon. Gentleman would define free trade—[Interruption.]

On a point of order, Sir—[Renewed interruption.]

^* : The hon. Member rises to a point of order. Surely he ought' to be heard.

On a point of order, I wish to ask you Sir, why an hon. Member who rises on the other side of the House to a point of order is to have you claim a hearing for him, when you did not claim a hearing for the hon. Member who was speaking on this side?

^* :When an hon. Member rises to a point of order—

He is in no better position than anyone else.

^* : When the hon. Member himself rose to a point of order I at once called on him to speak.

May I be allowed to say that you, Sir, did not rise at any time during the last quarter of an hour to ask the Committee to listen to the hon. Gentleman who was in possession?

^* : If it were in my power, I would obtain silence for every hon. Member, but it seems impossible for me to obtain silence even for myself.

^* : May I make an appeal to the Committee? The hon. Member for Merthyr is very much opposed to me on this matter, but he has a perfect right to express his opinions. I think that if he will condense those opinions within a few minutes the Committee will hear him, but the Committee is evidently anxious to come to a decision.

^* said he could not promise to condense his remarks, and accordingly moved to report progress.

Motion made, and Question put. "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—( Mr. D. A. Thomas .)

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 126; Noes, 212. (Division List No. 289.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.	Daly, James	Hammond, John
Allen, Chas. P.(Glouc., Stroud	Delany, William	Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm.
Ambrose, Robert	Dillon, John	Hardie, J Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)
Asquith, Rt. Hn Herbert Henry	Donelan, Captain A.	Harwood, George
Atnerley-Jones, L.	Doogan, P. C.	Hayden, John Patrick
Barry, E. (Cork, S.)	Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)	Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire	Duffy, William J.	Helme, Norval Watson
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.	Elibank, Master of	Holland, William Henry
Boland, John	Ellis, John Edward	Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)
Boyle, James	Esmonde, Sir Thomas	Joicey, Sir James
Brigg, John	Farrell, James Patrick	Jones, Day Brynmor(Swansea)
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James	Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)	Jones, William(Carnarvonsh'e
Burt, Thomas	Ffrench, Peter	Jordan, Jeremiah
Buxton, Sydney Charles	Field, William	Joyce, Michael
Caldwell, James	Flynn, James Christopher	Kennedy, Patrick James
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)	Fuller, J. M. F.	Layland-Barratt, Francis
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Gilhooly, James	Leigh, Sir Joseph
Channing, Francis Allston	Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John	Levy, Maurice
Cogan, Denis J.	Goddard, Daniel Ford	Lough, Thomas
Crean, Eugene	Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)	Lundon, W.
Cullinan, J.	Haldane, Richard Burdon	MacNeill, John Gordon Swift
M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)	O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)	Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)
M'Crae, George	O'Dowd, John	Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
M'Dermott, Patrick	O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)	Sinclair, Capt John (Forfarshire
M'Fadden, Edward	O'Malley, William	Soares, Ernest J.
M'Govern, T.	O'Mara, James	Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northants
M'Kenna, Reginald	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.	Sullivan, Donal
M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)	Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham)	Tennant, Harold John
Mansfield, Horace Rendall	Partington, Oswald	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Mooney, John J.	Paulton, James Mellor	Thomas, F. Freeman- (Hastings
Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)	Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)	Thomas, JA (Glamorgan, Gow'r
Moss, Samuel	Power, Patrick Joseph	Thompson, Dr EC (Monagh'n, N
Murphy, John	Priestley, Arthur	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Nannetti, Joseph P.	Rea, Russell	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan
Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)	Reddy, M.	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Norman, Henry	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Nussey, Thomas Willans	Redmond, William (Clare)	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)	Rickett, J. Compton	Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Rigg, Richard	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)	Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.)	Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
O'Doherty, William	Robson, William Snowdon	Mr. D. A. Thomas and Mr.
O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)	Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse	Fenwick.
NOES.
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.	Davies, Sir Horatio D(Chatham	Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte	Dickson, Charles Scott	Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel	Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield	Johnston, William (Belfast)
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Disraeli, Conings by Ralph	Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)
Archdale, Edward Mervyn	Dorington, Sir John Edward	Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.	Doxford, Sir William Theodore	Keswick, William
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Duke, Henry Edward	Knowles, Lees
Bailey, James (Walworth)	Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin	Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.
Bain, Colonel James Robert	Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Win. H.	Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)
Balcarres, Lord	Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton	Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J.(Manch'r)	Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.	Lawson, John Grant
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)	Finch, George H.	Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage
Balfour. Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds	Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne	Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie
Balfour, Maj. KR(Christchurch	Firbank, Joseph Thomas	Leveson-Gower, Frederick, N. S
Banbury, Frederick George	Fisher, William Hayes	Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S)
Bathurst, Hon. A. Benjamin	Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon	Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)
Beach. Rt. Hn. Sir M.H(Bristol)	Flower, Ernest	Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison
Beckett, Ernest William	Forster, Henry William	Macdona, John Cumming
Bentinck, Lord Henry C.	Foster, Philip S (Warwick. S W.	MacIver, David (Liverpool)
Bignold, Arthur	Galloway, William Johnson	Maconochie, A. W.
Bigwood, James	Gibbs, Hn. A.G.H.(City of Lond	M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool
Bond, Edward	Godson, Sir Augustus Fred.	M'Calmont. Col. J. (Antrim, E.)
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-	Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin&Nairn	M'Killop, James(Stirlingshire)
Brassey, Albert	Gore, Hn GRC. Ormsby- (Salop.	Malcolm, Ian
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby- (Linc.)	Manners, Lord Cecil
Brymer, William Ernest	Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.	Maple, Sir John Blundell
Bullard, Sir Harry	Goulding, Edward Alfred	Massey-Mainwaring, Hn W. F.
Butcher, John George	Graham, Henry Robert	Maxwell, W.J. H. (Dumfriessh.
Carlile, William Walter	Gray, Ernest (West Ham)	Melville, Beresford Valentine
Cautley, Henry Strother	Green, Walford D (Wednesbury	Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)	Greene, Sir EW (B'ry S Edm'nds	Molesworth, Sir Lewis
Cavendish, V C W (Derbyshire)	Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)	Moore, William (Antrim, N.)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)	Morgan, David J. (Walthamst.)
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)	Grenfell, William Henry	Morrell, George Herbert
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm	Gretton, John	Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.
Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc.	Greville, Hon. Ronald	Morrison, James Archibald
Chapman, Edward	Groves, James Grimble	Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford
Churchill, Winston Spencer	Guthrie, Walter Murray	Mount, William Arthur
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Halsey, Thomas Frederick	Murray, Rt Hn. A Graham(Bute
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Hambro, Charles Eric	Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready	Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lord G (Mid'x	Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)
Compton, Lord Alwyne	Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nde'y	Nicholson, William Graham
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow	Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd)	Nicol, Donald Ninian
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Haslam, Sir Alfred S.	Parkes, Ebenezer
Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge	Haslett, Sir James Horner	Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington
Cranborne, Viscount	Hay, Hon. Claude George	Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)	Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter	Penn, John
Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)	Higginbottom, S. W.	Percy, Earl
Cubitt, Hon. Henry	Hope, JF. (Sheffield, Brightside	Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Dalkeith, Earl of	Hoult, Joseph	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Dalrymple, Sir Charles	Howard, John (Kent, Faversh m	Pretyman, Ernest George
Pryce-Jones, Lt. -Col. Edward	Shaw-Stewart, M.H. (Renfrew	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney
Purvis, Robert	Smith, HC (North'mb Tyneside	Welby, Sir Charles G.E. (Notts.
Pym, C. Guy	Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)	Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-
Randles, John S.	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)	Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd
Rankin, Sir James	Spear, John Ward	Whiteley, H.(Ashton-u.-Lyne
Reid, James (Greenock)	Stanley, Hn. Arthur) Ormskirk	Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Remnant, James Farquharson	Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)	Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Ridley. Hn. M.W.(Stalybridge	Stock, James Henry	Willox, Sir John Archibald
Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green	Stroyan, John	Wills, Sir Frederick
Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. T.	Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley	Wilson, AStanley (Yorks, E.R.
Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)	Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier	Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Ropner, Colonel Robert	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)	Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Round, James	Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G(Oxf'd Univ	Wodehouse, Rt Hn. KR. (Bath)
Russell, T. W.	Thornton, Percy M.	Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-	Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray	Wylie, Alexander
Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander,	Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert	Valentia, Viscount
Saunderson. Rt. Hn. Col. Edw J.	Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)	Warde, Col. C. E.	Sir William Walrond and
Sharps, Wm. Edward T.	Warr, Augustus Frederick	Mr. Anstruther.

Question again proposed: "That Clause 3, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

^* said he regretted he was unable to continue his remarks owing to the interruptions of hon. Members opposite, whom the Chairman was unable to keep under control. He believed that the coal tax was conceived in prejudice and brought forth in ignorance. He desired to assure the House that his interest in the coal trade was very little. [An HON. MEMBER: Oh!] That was the first occasion on which he had heard an assurance of that kind repudiated by an hon. Member in the way that his statement had been repudiated; but, although he had little interest in the coal trade, he claimed to have a knowledge of the subject. He maintained that they were entitled to a reasonable time for the discussion of a proposal which for the first time in fifty years made an inroad on the policy of free trade. When the right hon. Gentleman shielded himself behind Mr. Gladstone and Sir Robert Peel he was shielding himself behind sentiments expressed more than half a century ago. In the Treaty with France, which was made in 1860 by Mr. Gladstone, there was a clause which prohibited any export duty being placed on coal. He challenged the right hon. Gentleman to quote any economic authority in favour of such an impost. But, doubtless, the right hon. Gentleman was unable to hear his remarks owing to the unruly and disorderly noise of hon. Members opposite. Money had been squandered on an unnecessary war which might have been easily avoided. But though he wished to see that war carried to a successful conclusion—

^* : I do not think that the origin of the war can be discussed on the coal duty.

^* said, rightly or wrongly, money had been spent on the war, and must be found. He himself had voted for the tea and sugar duties because they were not an infringement of the fiscal policy of the country which had been so successful for fifty years. No one with any knowledge of the subject would say for a single moment that England had a monopoly of coal. Did hon. Members opposite know that the production of coal in the United States was far greater than the production of coal in England, and that the production of coal in Germany, France, Japan, and other countries had enormously increased? How, therefore, could it be said that England had a monopoly of coal? Surely it stood to common sense that, if the English coal trade was losing in certain markets in competition with foreign coal, a Is. export duty would make the position even worse. The right hon. Gentleman had made a concession on contracts up to the end of December. He would appeal to him, even at the eleventh hour, to make the concession up to the end of the financial year. There could be no difference whatever in principle, and, although contracts were generally made-for the calendar year, they were very often extended. A great number of contracts had been made in the usual course of business before the 19th April without being covered, and therefore against the merchants; the price of coal had since gone up, and, in addition, the right hon. Gentleman now imposed 1s. additional tax. He would continue to protest against the tax, and must be content to leave it to the verdict of time to decide whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer or or himself was right.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 211;Nocs, 125. (Division List No. 290.)

AYES.
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.	Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon	Moore, William (Antrim, N.)
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte	Flower, Ernest	Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel	Forster, Henry William	Morrell, George Herbert
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Foster, Philip S.(Warwiek S W.	Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.
Archdale, Edward Mervyn	Galloway, William Johnson	Morrison, James Archibald
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Gibbs, Hn. A.G.H.(Cy. of Lond.	Morton, Arthur H. A (Deptford
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.	Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.	Mount, William Arthur
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Gordon, Hn. J. E.(Elgin&Nairn	Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)
Bailey, James (Walworth)	Gore, Hn. C. R. Ormsby-(Salop	Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Bain, Col. James Robert	Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.	Murray, Col. Wyndham(Bath)
Balcarres, Lord	Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon	Nicholson, William Graham
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r	Goulding, Edward Alfred	Nicol, Donald Ninian
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)	Graham, Henry Robert	Parkes, Ebenezer
Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds	Gray, Ernest (West Ham)	Pease, Herbert Pike (Drling'n
Balfour, Maj KR (Christchurch),	Green, Walford D. Wednesbury	Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Welle'sley
Banbury, Frederick George;	Greene, Sir EW (B'rySEdm'nd's	Penn, John
Bathurst, Hon. Allen B	Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury	Percy, Earl
Beach, Rt Hn. Sir M.H.(Bristol)	Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs	Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Beckett, Ernest William,	Grenfell, William Henry	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Bentinck, Lord Henry C.	Gretton, John	Pretyman, Ernest George
Bignold, Arthur	Greville, Hon. Ronald	Pryce-Jones, Lt. -Col. Edward
Bigwood, James	Groves, James Grimble	Purvis, Robert
Bond, Edward	Guthrie, Walter Murray	Pym, C. Guy
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-	Halsey, Thomas Frederick	Randles, John S.
Brassey, Albert	Hambro, Charles Eric	Rankin, Sir James
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Hamilton, Rt Hn Ld. G.(Midd'x	Reid, James (Greenock)
Brymer, William Ernest	Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nd'rry	Remnant, Jas. Farquharson
Bullard, Sir Harry	Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashfurd)	Ridley, Hon M.W.(Stalybr'dge
Butcher, John George	Harwood, George	Ridley, S. Forde (Betbnal Green
Carlile, William Walter	Haslam, Sir Alfred S.	Ritchie, Rt, Hn. Chas. Thomson
Cautley, Henry Strother	Haslett, Sir James Horner	Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)	Hay, Hon. Claude George	Ropner, Colonel Robert
Cavendish, V. C.W.(Derbysh.	Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.	Round. James
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Higginbottom, S. W.	Russell, T. W.
Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich)	Hope, J.F. (Sheffield Brightside	Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.(Birm.)	Hoult, Joseph	Sadler. Col. Samuel Alexander
Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)	Howard, John (Kent, Faversh.	Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Chapman, Edward	Jackson, Rt. Hn. Wm. Lawies	Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. E.J.
Churchill, Winston Spencer	Jessell, Capt. Herb. Merton	Seely, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.	Johnston, William (Belfast)	Sharpe, William Edward T.
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Johnstone, Hey wood (Sussex)	Shaw-Stewart, M.H.(Renfrew
Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready.	Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)	Smith, HC (North'mbTyueside
Compton, Lord Alwyne	Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.	Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks)
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow	Keswick, William	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Knowles, Lees	Spear, John Ward
Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge	Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)	Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)
Cranborne, Viscount	Lawrence, Win. F. (Liverpool)	Stanley, Lord (Lane.)
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)	Lawson, John Grant	Stock, James Henry
Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)	Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage	Slroyan, John
Cubitt, Hon. Henry	Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie	Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Dalkeith, Earl of	Leveson-Gower, Fred. N. S.	Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Dalrymple, Sir Charles	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham	Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)	Talbot, Rt Hn. J. G.(Oxfd Univ.
Dickson, Chas. Scott	Macartney. Rt Hn W. G. Ellison	Thornton, Percy M.
Dimsdale, Sir Joseph C.	Macdona, John Cumming	Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph	MacIver, David (Liverpool)	Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward
Dorington, Sir John Edward	Maconochie, A. W.	Valentia, Viscount
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)	Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)
Doxford, Sir William Theodore	M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.)	Warde, Colonel C. E.
Duke, Henry Edward	M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)	Warr, Augustus Frederick
Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin	Majendie, James A. H.	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney
Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart	Malcolm, Ian	Welby, Sir Charles G.E. (Notts.
Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton	Manners, Lord Cecil	Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward	Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F.	Wharton, Rt. Hon. John L.
Finch, George H.	Maxwell, W. J. H.(Dumfriessh.	Whiteley, H.(Ashton-u.-Lyne
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne	Melville, Beresford Valentine)	Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Firbank, Joseph Thomas	Mildmay, Francis Bingham	Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Fisher, William Hayes	Moles worth, Sir Lewis	Willox, Sir John Archibald
Wills, Sir Frederick	Wrightson, Sir Thomas	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Wilson, A. Stanlye (York, E .R.)	Wylie, Alexander	Sir William Walrond and
Wilson, John (Glasgow)	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George	Mr. Anstruther.
Wodehouse. Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath
NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.	Hammond, John	O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)
Allen, Charle P (Glouc., Stroud	Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William	O'Dowd, John
Ambrose, Robert	Hardie, J. Keir (Mertliyr Tydvil	O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)
Asquith. Rt. Hon Herb. Henry	Hayden, John Patrick	O'Malley, William
Atherley Jones, L.	Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-	O'Mara, James
Barry, E. (Cork, S.)	Helme, Norval Watson	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)	Holland, William Henry	Partington, Oswald
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.	Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)	Paulton, James Mellor
Boland, John	Joicey, Sir James	Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)
Boyle, James	Jones, David Brynmor (Swans'a	Power, Patrick Joseph
Brigg, John!	Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.	Priestley, Arthur
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James	Jordan, Jeremiah	Rea, Russell
Burt, Thomas	Joyce, Michael	Reddy, M.
Buxton, Sydney Charles	Kennedy, Patrick James	Redmond. John E. (Waterford)
Caldwell, James	Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm	Redmond, William (Clare)
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)	Layland-Barratt, Francis	Rickett, J. Compton
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Leigh, Sir Joseph	Rigg, Richard
Channing, Francis Allston	Levy, Maurice	Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Cogan, Denis J.	Lough, Thomas	Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Lundon, W.	Robson, William Snowdon
Crean, Eugene	Mac Neill, John Gordon Swift	Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Cullinan, J.	M'Arthur, William (Cornwall	Shaw, Chas. Edw. (Stafford)
Daly, James	M'Crae, George	Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Delany, William	M'Dermott, Patrick	Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.
Dillon, John	M'Fadden, Edward	Soares, Ernest J.
Donelan, Captain A.	M'Govern, T.	Spencer, Rt. Hn C R (Northants.
Doogan, P. C.	M'Kenna, Reginald	Sullivan, Donal
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)	M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)	Tennant, Harold John
Duffy, William J.	Mansfield, Horace Rendall	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Elibank, Master of	Mooney, John J.	Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hasting.-s
Ellis, John Edward	Morton, Edw. J. C.(Devonport)	Thomas JA (Glamorgan, Gower
Esmonde, Sir Thomas	Moss, Samuel	Thompson, Dr EC (Monagh'n, N
Farrell, James Patrick	Murphy, John	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)	Nannetti, Joseph P.	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan
Ffrench, Peter	Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Field, William	Norman, Henry	White, Patrick(Meath, North)
Flynn, James Christopher	Nussey, Thomas Willans	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Fuller, J. M. F.	O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid	Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Gilhooly, James	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John	O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)
Goddard, Daniel Ford	O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)	O'Doherty, William	Mr. D. A. Thomas and Mr.
Haldane, Richard Burdon	O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)	Fenwick.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again"—( Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer )—put, and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

Public Libraries Bill [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

[Mr. GRANT LAWSON (Yorkshire, N.R., Thirsk) in the Chair.]

said that the Bill was not before the Committee.

^* said that it would save the time of the House if a copy of the Bill were to lie accepted and considered.

said, although he was quite willing that the Bill should pass, it was really a little too much to ask the Committee to pass a Bill which had not even been printed, and the Amendments to which did not appear on the Paper. He moved to report progress.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again"—( Mr. John Redmond )—put, and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

Adjourned at ten minutes after Two of the clock.

Volume 96: debated on Thursday 27 June 1901

House of Commons

Private Bill Business

Dublin, Wicklow and Wexford Railway (New Ross and Waterford Extension) Bill. (by Order.)

Message from the Lords

Petitions

Returns, Reports, Etc

Questions

Questions

South Africa—Sir David Barbour's Report on Finances

Lands Settlement Commission

Military Employment of Natives

Camps of Detention—Religious Ministrations

Vlakfontein

Lord Kitchener's Despatches

Lord Kitchener's Demand for Reinforcements

Lord Kitchener's Mounted Forces

Attack on Standerton Convoy

Farm Burning—Correspondence Between Lord Roberts and General Botha

Destruction of Private Property in War

Captures by Boers

Cost of the War

Boer Prisoners at St. Helena—Case of Godefroy

Returned Volunteers' Furloughs

Johannesburg Relief Funds

Paadekop Reverse

Lovat's Scouts

Reorganisation of the Army Medical Service—Committee of Experts

RöNtgen Rays in Military Hospitals

Military Courts-Martial—Deputy Judge Advocate General

Recruiting Statistics

Mounted Troops in the United Kingdom

Seaforth Militia

Soldiers in Civil Prisons—Case of Thomas Ryan

Volunteer Practice Ammunition

Soldiers' Separation Allowances

Soldiers Under Twenty Years of Age

Army Contracts in Ireland

Army Service Corps Depot in Manchester

Gibraltar Bank Stoppage

Gibraltar Works

New Royal Yacht

Beef Supply to the Channel Squadron at Berehaven

Victoria Memorial in India

Uganda Railway—Colonel Gracey's Report

Papers on Crete

Arabi Pasha

Germany and the Farsan Islands

Coal Duty Exemptions

City of London Police

Corporal Punishment in Gaols

Factory and Workshop Acts Irish Tailoring Trade

Glasgow Electric Cars—Wire Fatalities

Merchant Sailors' Rations—Case of the "Leicester Castle."

North-East Coast Fisheries—Trawlers' and Fishermen's Nets

Boarded-Out Pauper Children

Cloudesley Estate Fund, Islington

Foreign Prison-Made Goods

Brehon Laws

Mallaig Mails

Foreign Trawlers in Scottish Waters

Food and Drugs Act—Analytical Errors

Scottish Burgh Medical Officers of Health

Moonlighting in Co. Kerry

Agrarian Trouble at Ballinrobe

Agrarian Outrages in Ireland

Irish Local Government Board

County Councils Association Expenses

Meetings on the Custom House Steps at Belfast

Belturbet Right-Of-Way Dispute

Irish Medical Dispensary Offices

Irish Labourers' Cottage Schemes

Greystones Pier

Londonderry Police

Clonakilty Sanitation

Clonakilty Poor Law Administration

Evictions in Leitrim

Longford District Councils—Dispute With Board of Works

Agriculture and Technical Instruction Act—Dangerous Public Places